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.

Criminal Code

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

moved that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I also want to acknowledge the impact colonial practices have had on indigenous peoples, from overincarceration to overrepresentation in foster care and missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

Today, we begin third reading on Bill C-21, a bill that has been greatly improved through consultation with Canadians and indigenous peoples and in co-operation with the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. I wish more Canadians watched what happens at committee. It has been my experience throughout my time in this place that legislation has been improved at committee, and Bill C-21 is no exception. The bill we have before us today reflects that work.

Before talking about the bill itself, I would like to talk about some of those changes. The member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia is an exceptional parliamentarian, and I have had the pleasure of working with her for three and a half years now. She introduced important amendments, including the requirement for a possession and acquisition licence, or PAL, to purchase, transport and export or import cartridge magazines. This was an ask made by a number of stakeholders, but none more loudly or more courageously than the Danforth Families for Safe Communities.

Their story is tragic and well known, but we all know that the gun used that night on Danforth Avenue was a legally imported handgun that had later been stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan. The Danforth shooter then walked into a sporting goods store and legally bought seven magazines for his gun, with no questions asked, simply because a PAL was not required for him to buy them. That will no longer be possible now that these amendments have been adopted and once the bill becomes law. Let us think about that. Prior to these amendments, people did not have to prove that they had licences to purchase and own firearms in order to buy the thing that literally holds the bullets. That changes now.

This major amendment was passed unanimously. To be clear, it will not affect those licensed to carry a firearm. It will ensure that those who are not licensed to possess a firearm cannot legally buy cartridge magazines. Requiring gun owners to show their licences to purchase magazines just makes sense. People do not need magazines if they do not have licences to own a gun.

We also heard from the airsoft industry that the bill went too far and that the industry was willing to work with the government to regulate its sport. An amendment initiated by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford passed, so the clause deeming airsoft guns to be prohibited devices was removed from the bill. Thanks go to the airsoft community for working productively with our government to find a compromise that would ensure public safety is upheld while allowing the sport to be regulated.

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%. The Ontario coroner's death review panel said that 26% of women who were killed by their partner were killed using a firearm.

I have heard from such groups as 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 last five years. Intimate partner violence accounts for nearly 30% of all police-reported violent crime in Canada, and that number rose during the pandemic. In my riding and across the country, such local organizations as Halton Women's Place are helping to shine a brighter light on the dangers of gun violence.

Over the last eight years, as a country, we have also become more aware of the role that coercive control plays in abusive relationships. When firearms are added to the mix, it is a recipe for continued physical, emotional and psychological abuse. In coercive control, a man might use a gun to control a woman without ever pulling the trigger. Such control is real, and it happens every day. An Oakville resident sent me a note that stated, “Let me just say that you can endure the physical and emotional abuse, but when he pulls out a double-barrelled shotgun, loads it and tells you he is going to kill you, then you know true terror. Thank you for looking out for the victims before they become statistics.”

Our government has been advocating for women and will continue to do so. Through Bill C-21, we are taking additional steps to support survivors of intimate partner violence who have been threatened with or who have been on the receiving end of violence with a firearm.

The Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party and Green Party all put forward amendments to strengthen the intimate partner violence provisions of Bill C-21. The National Association for Women and the Law tweeted on Monday that they were “pleased that virtually all the amendments [they] proposed were adopted, some unanimously!” These amendments will make women safer.

During the clause-by-clause process, we included an amendment to further define a protection order. A protection order:

...is intended to include any binding order made by a court or other competent authority in the interest of the safety or security of a person; this includes but is not limited to orders that prohibit a person from:

(a) being in physical proximity to an identified person or following an identified person from place to place;

(b) communicating with an identified person, either directly or indirectly;

(c) being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place;

(d) engaging in harassing or threatening conduct directed at an identified person;

(e) occupying a family home or a residence; or

(f) engaging in family violence.

Protection orders are imperative to keep women safe. By setting minimum standards in the bill, people who have been subject to a protection order will now be ineligible to hold a firearms licence. We know that when a woman leaves an abusive partner, the first day is the most dangerous and violent. That is why there is an amendment to ensure that firearms are removed within 24 hours.

I thank the National Association of Women and the Law for their leadership on these amendments. Because of these changes in the bill, we will save women’s lives.

I am particularly pleased that the red-flag provision of the bill remains, ensuring that those concerned about a firearms owner being a danger to themselves or others can now apply to a judge for an order to immediately remove firearms from an individual who may present such a danger. Dr. Najma Ahmed from Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns stated this:

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.

The provision will also ensure that women who cannot go to the police have another tool to remove the firearm from their home. To support these new red-flag provisions, Public Safety Canada will establish a program to help raise awareness among victims about how to use the new protections. A guide about how to submit an application to the courts and the protections available could be developed, and the program would fund services to support individuals’ applications throughout the court process. It would support the most vulnerable and marginalized groups, including women, people with mental health issues, indigenous groups and other racialized communities, to help make certain that the red-flag laws are accessible to all, particularly those who may need it most. The government would also make available $5 million through a contribution program to ensure support and equitable access.

It is also important to state unequivocally that the fiduciary duty of peace officers under common law continues in force, notwithstanding the ability for any person to make an application for an emergency prohibition order. Simply put, police will still be required to do their job of removing guns from dangerous individuals. As I said, it just provides one additional tool for people to use, especially if calling the police is not an option.

In addition, an important amendment introduced by the government is a non-derogation clause. It states Parliament's intent that:

The provisions enacted by the Act [following Bill C-21] are to be construed as upholding the [aboriginal and treaty] rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.

Nothing in Bill C-21 would take away from section 35 rights; the Constitution still remains the law of the land.

While I know that he opposes the bill itself, I appreciate the way the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound worked with all parties to include an amendment that further spells out what has already been allowed in practice. Namely, ensuring that anyone with a handgun is able to temporarily store their firearm with a business or individual who also possesses an RPAL for any reason. This includes if an individual recognizes that they are experiencing a mental health crisis and do not want to have access to their firearm.

This example was one that was particularly important to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and to many of whom he spoke, including some veterans. I commend him for the way he conducted himself and the important addition he made to clarify the provisions related to the authorizations to transport in the Firearms Act. It is unfortunate that all members of the Conservative Party were not as constructive.

In particular, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe chose to politicize the requirement for a PAL to buy a magazine and attacked me while I shared the Danforth Families for Safe Communities' story. The member proceeded to post our exchange on social media saying that I had compared every hunter in Canada to the Danforth shooter, and that every single hunter should take note of what I think about them.

That is not what I said, but thanks to this member's misrepresentation, my direct messages have been filled with threats and misogynistic comments that use language I cannot repeat in the House. This kind of disinformation is typical of the Conservative Party throughout the debate.

The Conservative public safety critic and others continue to spread the false claim that Bill C-21 is targeting hunters. This is fearmongering. I have noticed that the Conservative Party prefers this approach of spreading fear to make Canadians fearful of leaving their homes, using our parks or taking public transit, and fearful of each other.

We are focusing on protecting Canadians and doing the hard work it takes to keep them safe. Conservative politicians prefer to fearmonger and speak in catchy slogans, rather than taking action to prevent crime, keep women safe and remove weapons designed for the battlefield from our streets.

I would now like to turn to other provisions found in Bill C-21. Canadians have been calling upon successive governments for reform and stronger gun control, and in May 2020 we took additional action through an order in council to ban over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms, including the AR-15.

As U.S. Major General Paul Eaton, retired, has said, “For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war.” These weapons, designed for the battlefield, have no place on Canadian streets. I have a question for the Conservative Party: Would it make the AR-15 legal again?

Through Bill C-21, we are building on the work done in 2020 to offer a prospective technical definition to ensure that, in addition to the weapons banned in 2020, no future similar weapons will ever be able to enter the Canadian market. Furthermore, the Minister of Public Safety has committed to taking action through regulation to take the burden away from firearms owners to make manufacturers responsible for classifying firearms. This responds to recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission. Doctors for Protection from Guns called the definition “A victory for science, public health, and Canadian values...to permanently ban future models of assault weapons.”

In addition, we are implementing a national freeze on handguns to prevent individuals from bringing newly acquired handguns into Canada, and from buying, selling and transferring handguns within the country, a freeze which, through regulations, has been in effect since October 2022.

It was actually Ken Price of the Danforth Families for Safe Communities who was one of the first proponents of implementing a national freeze on handguns. When Ken testified at committee he stated:

In summary, there's clear evidence on the association between access to handguns and endemic gun violence, and access to semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines and multiple mass shooting events. There is good evidence that the restriction of access to these weapons reduces endemic gun violence and reduces the number of victims of multiple mass shooting events.

Ultimately, it's a choice society has to make. What guns are permissible? What should we allow access to? What level of gun violence are we willing to accept in our community?

Our government is making that choice with Bill C-21. We cannot and will not tolerate gun violence in our communities, while we continue to respect those who hunt for sustenance, sport or tradition.

Bill C-21 would also address illegal smuggling and trafficking at the border by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools for law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes and strengthening border security measures. Chief Evan Bray of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police testified at committee in support of these provisions, saying:

“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.”

We need to remember that Bill C-21 would take a multipronged approach that addresses gun violence. This would include increasing penalties for illegal gun smugglers, freezing the sale of handguns, taking action to address the proliferation of ghost guns and introducing measures that make it safer for women to leave abusive relationships.

I am very proud to be part of a government that has passed Bill C-71, and that now, hopefully, will pass Bill C-21. I have heard from Canadians who applaud what we are doing with this bill. They have thanked us for our work on this, saying that guns and ease of access will never be more important than human lives and public safety, and that the bill would protect thousands of people’s lives.

Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control, who has been working on this issue for over 30 years, said:

No law is ever perfect but Bill C-21 is a game changer for Canada and should be implemented as soon as possible. The law responds to most of the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission and the demands of the Coalition for Gun Control...which, with more than 200 supporting organizations, has fought for stronger firearm laws for more than thirty years.

I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the work that PolySeSouvient has done for over 30 years to make our country safer. Its advocacy work grew from the misogynistic slaughter of women at Polytechnique in 1989, and I have the utmost respect for their dedication to gun control.

I want to close by giving special thanks to the Liberal, Bloc and NDP members of the public safety committee, who worked together, at times into the wee hours of the night, to ensure that the bill we have before us is better than when it started. I thank the New Democratic Party and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and the Bloc Québécois and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I also have to give a special shout-out to Sarah Thomas, Conor Lewis and all the staff, without whom we as members could not do our jobs. I thank the minister and his team for their herculean efforts on this bill, and the Prime Minister, for making gun control a central policy of our government.

We will vote on this bill tomorrow. It will be a legacy for this government, one that I am incredibly proud of.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say that, growing up, hunting was essential for our family. I am from a military home. My dad is Métis, and I know that the indigenous people do not just want amendments. They want the bill removed.

I will quote Chief Jessica Lazare from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake. She says, “the lack of in-depth and comprehensive consultation with indigenous communities is demonstrated in the incoherence and inconsistency of this bill”.

I know that, of my constituents, there are many who are firearms owners. They know they are careful. They are law-abiding, and they feel they are personally being attacked because the Liberals want to point and show they are being really strong on crime, when it is a disaster. They have a terrible record, and it is going up.

Will the Liberal member not recognize how this is essentially virtue signalling and how it would not make our streets safer?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to unpack in that. Perhaps the member needs to read the amendments that were done at committee, which include a clause that would ensure that indigenous people's section 35 rights are still in place. There is nothing virtue signalling in this bill, and I am sure the hon. member does not want to forget about the 75% of Canadian suicide victims who died by firearms.

This bill would tackle suicides, intimate partner violence and gun crime. There are many aspects to firearms deaths in this country, and that is why I am proud of the work we are doing in this bill, which would actually save lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her co-operation throughout the study of this bill. I really appreciated working with her and her team. I know that she has been working for better gun control in this country for a number of years.

It was clearly the government's intention to ban assault weapons. The government's first attempt failed. The second attempt was somewhat watered down compared to the first. As we have discussed at length, the proposed definition is prospective, meaning that hundreds of assault-style weapons remain in circulation in the country.

In response to that, the minister told us that he was going to re-establish the Canadian firearms advisory committee and ask for a recommendation on how it could classify firearms. Handing this over to experts is not a bad idea. However, of the 482 firearms, the government itself identified those that could potentially be used for hunting. It identified a dozen.

Why not immediately ban the other 470 using an order in council? That is the proposal I made to the minister. I would like to know what she thinks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I wish I could answer her question in French.

However, with regard to the firearms in question, as the hon. member knows, a number of those were included in the order in council, which was done in May 2020, and we know that the technical definition in the bill will ensure that future firearms are caught. For the 482, there would be the reconstituted firearms advisory council that would look at those to provide advice to the government, moving forward, to determine which of those should be included.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I represent an urban riding in a major municipality, and I think that there is a pretty broad consensus in my constituency that people are in favour of strong, fair and rational gun legislation and restrictions. I think they understand the connection between the proliferation of guns and associated violence that comes from it, but at the same time, we do have a healthy number of people in my riding who engage in sport shooting or hunting, even though they live in an urban setting.

I wonder if my hon. colleague can tell us, as the first iteration of the bill did not draw a very good line in that regard, what improvements she would point to in the bill that would give assurance to people who do use firearms responsibly for hunting or sport purposes that they will be able to access the equipment they need to carry on with their legitimate activities.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that a number of Canadians feel that we are taking strong action on guns. How many are in support? It is 84% of Canadians who are saying that we are on the right track, including a majority of rural Canadians.

With regards to sport shooting, there is an exemption in the bill for those who participate in or are on a pathway to Olympic sports. As the hon. member likely knows, there will be regulations that will be developed around that, but the pathway is only for those who are on track to participate in the Olympics or the Paralympics. Nothing in the bill would impact those who are in the biathlon sport. That is what is in the bill, and that is what the member can tell his constituents.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for all of her work on this.

The member mentioned how difficult these discussions have been to get to the real crux of the matter. I am looking at a discussion I had with one of my constituents on December 2 of last year. He was talking about paintball cases, that 2,000 paintballs were $150 versus magfed at $30, and that the airsoft community had not been consulted at that time. He had served in the military. He knows that AR-15s should not be available anywhere in Canada, so he was approaching it from the recreational community saying that, at the time, we had not consulted them.

Could the hon. member comment on how much work there has been to get to the right level of consultation with the right people?

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

Mr. Speaker, airsoft industry representatives were extremely productive in their discussions with the government and with the committee. They were willing to work with the government to see their sport regulated. I had a number of conversations, as I know a number of members in this House did, with representatives of the airsoft industry. We will work with them. They are supportive of having a minimum age to purchase airsoft, and around transportation and storage.

I commend the airsoft industry for the way it worked with the government. As members know, the bill before us removed the prohibition for airsoft guns thanks to the NDP members, who put forward an amendment that was passed at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I had the displeasure of sitting through the public safety committee and listening to a lot of the rhetoric that came from the other side, both NDP and Liberal, on this bill. Contrary to public opinion, it does not improve public safety. Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the parliamentary secretary, it does not improve public safety.

We did not hear from one group of individuals who supported red flag laws. In fact, PolySeSouvient, who were big fans of the Liberals up until the Liberals refused to listen to them, and 20 other national women's groups have asked to please not invoke red flag laws in Bill C-21, because they do not work. They put women victims at risk. I stood up and said that, from my experience, the current law works and it works well. Why are the Liberals so dogmatic and not listening to the Canadian public? We know the answer, because that is what they always do.

What is the explanation for why the Liberals will not listen to Canadians? Women's groups that used to support the government are saying to please remove red flag laws from this bill. Why have the Liberals not done that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will correct the hon. member. We did hear, at committee, from Doctors for Protection from Guns, which did support red flag laws.

I would also remind the hon. member, when we are discussing red flags and other things to protect women, that he seems to ignore the fact that, in my riding of Oakville North—Burlington, at Halton Women's Place, the only women who go to the shelter when firearms are involved are married to police officers. The hon. member has claimed that individuals who were coming forward were actually making false claims with no evidence. He said his changes would have lowered the chance of those coming forward for nefarious reasons to make claims that are false.

Women who come forward with claims of violence in the home because of firearms are not making malicious claims. To try to belittle them is offensive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am happy to be rising today to discuss this piece of legislation, but I am happy to be rising as a law-abiding firearms owner to defend my fellow law-abiding firearms owners.

How did we get here? I will put things in context so the people who might be watching at home know whom they are listening to. I am a member of Parliament for an urban-rural split riding in central Alberta. Half of my constituents live in Red Deer, the third-largest city in Alberta, and the other half live on a first nation reserve, or in a rural setting in Red Deer County, Lacombe County or Ponoka County, or in a small town, city or village therein.

I would consider the people I represent to be honest, hard-working, law-abiding folks who want their tax dollars spent wisely and want the freedom to pursue whatever they want to pursue in life. Many of them pursue various things that involve firearms, including hunting, farming on farms like the one I grew up on, where firearms are just a tool and an everyday part of life, or sport shooting. This is very popular in my constituency. There are numerous stores and vendors in central Alberta that supply firearms, ammunition and parts because of the demand that is there.

I can tell members that we do not have the problems that my colleague who just spoke talked about in her large urban centre, because we respect the law. We put policies in place at the provincial level, and when we are the governing party, we put laws in place that actually crack down on criminals. That is where the actual issue lies.

I can assure Canadians who might be watching at home that the firearms I own are doing nothing right now. They do not do anything until someone picks them up. The issue at hand is violent crime and who has access to firearms. There are numerous provisions in this bill, Bill C-21, that do not address, penalize or in any way affect the outcome of dealing with the wrong people getting a hold of firearms.

How did we get here? Over the course of the preceding decades, Canada was a country that was a rugged place to settle, and it is still a rugged place for some who live in rural areas or adjacent to wild areas or who are farming, involved in forestry, or doing something as seemingly innocuous as keeping beehives. Anybody watching at home who grew up with cartoon books would know that Winnie-the-Pooh was addicted to honey. This is not by chance. Bears often frequent these places, and good, honest people have bought firearms to protect themselves, many of whom were caught up in the order in council that came out a number of years ago.

It all started in the 1930s. If we go back that far, every single firearm and handgun in this country has been put in a registry, but that does not stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally. The government of the day, whenever it is Liberal or Liberal-leaning, seems to want to blame the law-abiding citizen, so, for decades, we have had a firearms registry and the government knows where all the lawfully owned handguns in this country are. Changes were brought in back when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister, including a long-gun registry, which was wasteful and ineffective. The government of the day said it would cost only $2 million, but it was actually closer to $2 billion. Of course, it did not do anything to address violent crime.

We have seen the current government, in its first mandate, put in place Bill C-75, which basically codified in law bail provisions that would let people out in the shortest amount of time with the smallest number of restrictions, and now we see what has happened with that.

What did Bill C-21 originally do? When the members of this House were invited to speak to the bill, it was simply the codification in law of an order in council to ban the transfer of handguns. Then, sneakily, the government decided to table-drop, back in November, a huge stack of amendments that had absolutely nothing to do with handguns. They were all about long guns, and of course the government bit off far more than it could chew.

The government managed to alienate almost all of its voting base when it comes to indigenous Canadians, who were offended by the fact that the firearms used by indigenous people were largely going to be caught up in amendment G-46, taking away their ability to use that firearm.

There was also an evergreen clause in G-4, and I am sorry to report that there is a new evergreen clause put in place that does virtually the same thing, with a minor exception, which I will explain in a few minutes, when I get back to what the problem actually is with the government's notions going forward on its new evergreen clause.

We all remember what happened. It was pretty obvious, because we heard the recordings from the Mass Casualty Commission. The government actually interfered. It took this mass casualty event in Nova Scotia and interfered in the investigation by demanding that the officers who were investigating at the time turn over information to advance a political agenda of the government of the day.

We know it is not about evidence. It is not evidence-based policy-making; it is policy-based evidence-making and evidence-finding, even if it interferes with a police investigation. That is why there is very little trust by law-abiding firearms owners in the intentions of the Liberal government, which is supported by the NDP, and what it is doing.

What is the problem? The problem is violent crime. In the last eight years, violent crime has risen because of the provisions that have been passed by the government when it had a majority and with the support of other left-leaning parties in this place. They passed numerous pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, that have basically eliminated any consequences whatsoever for people who commit crimes, so much so that violent crime in the last eight years is up 32% over what it was when the Prime Minister and his government inherited the government offices of this place.

More astonishing is this number: 94% increase in gang-related homicides. One would think that an almost doubling of the number of homicides by gang members would trigger a response from the government to crack down on organized crime, but it actually has done the opposite. The passages and clauses in the Criminal Code that would deal with people who are repeat violent offenders have largely been removed, as well as any semblance of a minimum sentence. I am not even talking about mandatory minimum sentences put in place by Stephen Harper when he was prime minister, and by the way crime went down over those 10 years, but I am getting to the point of the fact that numerous basic minimum sentences were removed.

These were put in place by people like Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. Of the 12 firearms-related clauses in that piece of legislation, 11 were actually put in place by previous Liberal governments, and the current version of the Liberal government has removed even the most basic minimum sentences for violent crime, including smuggling, firing a gun irresponsibly or even holding a gun to somebody's head for the purpose of extortion. It has removed any mandatory jail time whatsoever for those.

That is the tone and the signal Liberals have sent to the country. Why would criminals not want to increase their activity? There are no consequences, and this is the problem.

I will give an example of the illogic of what the government is doing right now. According to the RCMP's website, there are approximately 430 gangs in Canada with 7,000 members in those gangs. If we look at the average number of homicides committed by people associated with gangs over the last five or six years, it is about 50% of murders. Fifty per cent of murders are committed by gang members, or about 125 a year. There are 2.2 million licensed gun owners in this country. If we look over that same time period, we will see that they are charged for homicide about 12 times a year.

That is 12 out of 2.2 million people versus 125 out of 7,000 people. Who does the government go after? It goes after the 2.2 million. It does not make any sense whatsoever. If we do the math, a gang member is 3,300 times more likely to commit murder with a firearm than a law-abiding firearm owner is, yet the government focuses only on the law-abiding firearm owner.

Gary Mauser, professor emeritus, did an analysis for Statistics Canada that shows that Canadians who are not licensed firearms owners are still three times more likely to commit a homicide than a vetted, licensed gun owner is. For the people who are watching at home, the safest people in Canada for them to be with are legally vetted, law-abiding firearm owners who, at any time, could have their firearms taken away with any complaint lodged against them. That means that every firearm owner meticulously follows the laws of storage, the laws of transportation and the laws of safe discharge. As a matter of fact, we jokingly quip sometimes that gun control meetings are about making sure one's muzzle is always pointed downrange. That is what gun control is to a law-abiding gun owner. We follow all the rules because we do not want to risk losing our privileges, because the fact is that every firearm in Canada is illegal unless it is in the possession of somebody with a licence who is authorized to have that firearm.

We have to go through a renewal process every five years, during which our entire history, including our mental health history, our medical history and anything that might have happened before the courts is reviewed in detail. We wait months to get our licence renewed. Sometimes it is not renewed on time. This puts us in a situation, as law-abiding firearm owners, where we are now in possession of our firearms, which were legal one day, but of which, because of the incompetence of the government to process an application on time, we are now technically, according to the law, illegally in possession. We actually had a clause, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, where people had a six-month grace period. I am very frustrated by the removal of that grace period, and I will get to that in a minute.

In committee, Dr. Caillin Langmann from McMaster University basically laid it out for everybody to see. His brief states:

The foregoing research papers are peer reviewed and conclude that Canadian legislation to regulate and control firearm possession and acquisition does not have a corresponding effect on homicide and suicide rates.

It also states:

I was asked to produce a review paper for the Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2021. This paper entitled, “Suicide, firearms, and legislation: A review of the Canadian evidence” reviewed 13 studies regarding suicide and legislative efforts and found an associated reduction in suicide by firearm in men aged 45 and older but demonstrated an equivalent increase in suicide by other methods such as hanging. Factors such as unemployment, low income, and indigenous populations were associated with suicide rates....

My conclusions are based on sound statistical analysis and information specifically related to Canada. I am not aware of any other Canadian research which uses reliable statistical models to dispute or disagree with my conclusions.

The brief also states:

Bans of military-appearing firearms, semiautomatic rifles and handguns, short barrel handguns and Saturday night specials in the 1990s has resulted in no associated reduction in homicide rates.

To summarize the results, no statistically significant beneficial associations were found between firearms legislation and homicide by firearm, as well as spousal homicide by firearms, and the criminal charge of “Discharge of a Firearm with Intent”....

Other studies have demonstrated agreement with my studies that laws targeting restricted firearms such as handguns and certain semi-automatic and full automatic firearms in Canada also had no associated effect with homicide rates. Canadian studies by Leenaars and Lester 2001, Mauser and Holmes 1992, and McPhedran and Mauser 2013, are all in general agreement with my study.

The issue is violent crime. It is about controlling violent criminals, controlling those people. One can control inanimate objects all one wants, but it will not change anything. Therefore, the “who” is not the problem. It is not hunters. Over eight million people in this country hunt and fish, contributing $19 billion annually to the GDP, and the order in council has already banned rifles used for hunting, some that even conservation officers use. I was a conservation officer. I was a national park warden and I was issued firearms for my duties. I was a park ranger in charge of a park in the province of Alberta and I was issued firearms for those duties as well. Every person I dealt with as a conservation officer was at least a camper who had an axe, a fisherman who had a knife or a hunter who had either a rifle or a bow and arrow. I had no trouble with those good people, no trouble whatsoever.

We are going to ban the very guns that conservation officers use, but they do not have those firearms. The Yukon government actually had to go around the order in council to buy firearms for its conservation officers, because those are the best firearms available to protect its officers from bears, mountain lions and all of the other issues that conservation officers face, because that is where the real issue lies.

It is very clear to me as a hunter, that, with the changes the Liberals have made, they are weasel words, especially the evergreen clause that deals with magazines. I laid it out very clearly at committee that anybody who wants to interpret it that way can say that, as long as a firearm can take a magazine that holds more than five rounds, it shall be banned. After this becomes law, we would end up in a situation in which, with guns that are functionally identical, one from 10 years ago and a new firearm, one would be prohibited and the other would still be legal. This is because of the clear lack of knowledge and understanding, when it comes to firearms, of people who do not own guns, making laws that simply do not work. We are going to have that scenario again.

However, if people think their gun is safe because they have an older gun that is not included in the new evergreen clause, they should think again, because the firearms committee that would be struck would still have the same authority to do a firearms reference table analysis and ban whatever guns it does not like.

I have news for everybody in this room. If we look at all of the hunting regulations in all of the provinces and territories in this country, a hunting rifle is a rifle that is in the hands of a hunter, used for the purposes of the hunt. It does not matter what it looks like; it just matters what the calibre of the bullet is, so the animal can be safely dispatched.

I could go on for literally a couple more hours and talk about the end of cowboy mounted shooting, cowboy action shooting, IPSC, all of these sports for all of these good people. They are mostly Filipinos there, by the way, when I go to an IPSC event. They are people who have moved here from a country that never allowed them to own firearms, but they have come here and taken up this sport and activity. They are frustrated because, when we take away the ability to transfer these handguns between law-abiding citizens, it will be the end of thousands of people's enjoyment of the sports that involve handguns. I look forward to answering some hopefully logical questions from around the room.

Before I conclude, 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 third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 0.1, 1.1 and 17, with a view to ensure that the government cannot take away hunting rifles from law-abiding farmers, hunters and Indigenous peoples.”

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The amendment is in order.

It being 5:32 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

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 a third time and passed, and of the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, we are finally at third reading stage of this bill that we have put so much work into. It may not seem like it, but we have been working on this for a year already. I have spoken to this bill in the House before, including last week, during consideration of Government Business No. 25, and yesterday, when I rose to give some background on the bill during our study at report stage.

I have often mentioned how the study of this bill unfolded. On the government side, it was all a bit sloppy. For starters, the bill was definitely incomplete when it was introduced. Amendments were made without notice. These amendments were withdrawn while others were reintroduced later. Finally, time allocation was imposed, with two days of intensive study in committee. The bill then returned to the House for consideration at report stage, and here we are now, at third reading.

This has been quite an adventure. I think people are not necessarily aware of all the work that goes into studying a bill. Whether on the government benches or in opposition, everyone has a job to do. Taking a position on a subject as sensitive as firearms gets people worked up, but regardless of the subject, we do not go about this any which way. Obviously, we work it out.

The Bloc Québécois tries to take positions that are as reasonable as possible. We also do our best to know what we are talking about. However, that is one criticism that I have received a lot. I was told that I sounded like I did not know what I was talking about, that I was just a girl who does not know much about guns because I do not own one. That kind of comment came up a lot. People are watching us. They watch when I speak in the House and in committee, when I do an interview on the radio, in the press or on TV, when I post a message on social media. Those comments come up a lot and it is distressing because, at the end of the day, we are trying to do our job and make things better.

This was my first experience studying a bill, and it was great. We get to see what a difference we can really make. My party whip recently reminded me that what I was doing was pretty amazing. She said that when I am old and in my rocking chair, I will be able to tell my grandchildren that I worked on legislation to improve gun control in Canada. The work we did was pretty amazing.

We are not saying everything is perfect, but we have made some gains. I started to list them yesterday in my speech. I talked about the fact that the words “hunting rifle” were removed from the definition of prohibited weapons. I also talked about the list of weapons that the government was trying to add to the Criminal Code, but was removed as a result of conversations we had with the government. These gains are easily attributable to the Bloc Québécois's work.

Sometimes it is easy to give ourselves credit when the government implements a policy or a bill is passed, because we know exactly what we worked on. Other times, we wonder whether our party really did its part. In this case, I am absolutely certain that we did. We worked hard to achieve those gains that I believe improved the bill. When this bill is passed, we will know that we at least tried to improve it.

Yesterday, I ended my speech by talking about airsoft guns, the controversial toy guns that are used for paintball and other recreational activities. In the beginning, in the initial bill, the government wanted to ban them the same as other guns. The Fédération sportive d'airsoft du Québec and other federations from across the country came and testified before the committee. They said that they understood why the government wanted to ban airsoft guns. Many police organizations talked about the confusion that these guns can cause during a hold up, for example. A person may use this kind of fake weapon and put themselves and others in danger because the police think that it is a real gun.

We heard these comments, and so did the people from the federations. They said that they did not want to see people who practise this hobby, this sport, be penalized and that there must be a way to do things differently. They said they had no problem with increased regulations for their sport. They said that regulations around transportation, storage, use and an age requirement, for example, being 18, could be added for someone to acquire an airsoft gun. We really saw that these federations were open to working with us. They did not want them to be banned, but they were prepared to accept increased regulation. Even the government agreed that they were taking a very reasonable approach. That is why we worked to ensure they were not banned, but regulated, as the federations suggested.

We worked hard on this. Usually, something has to be specifically mentioned in a bill for the government to then be able to regulate it. It was therefore difficult to only delete the clause because we would no longer be making reference to airsoft. How, then, would we regulate it?

We agonized over this for days only to realize that it was possible. The officials told us that anything is possible. We realized that the government could regulate airsoft guns without us necessarily making reference to them in Bill C‑21. We simply decided to delete the clause of the bill, then the government abstained, which left room for the opposition parties to vote in favour of this. The federations were very pleased with this work. Yes, it is an NDP amendment that was accepted. However, the Bloc Québécois amendment was the same and it would have come next. It could have been the Bloc Québécois amendment. All that to say that we worked hard on this.

Since that clause was adopted I have received email. I wanted to share them with the House today because they offer a nice little pat on the back. I received one from Guillaume Mailloux, who is the owner of SMPR Tactique et Plein-Air, a shop in Quebec City. Here is what Mr. Mailloux said:

Hello

I'm taking the time to write a few lines this morning because I want to thank you. This morning, for the first time in ages, I am sipping my coffee without stressing about my business, my employees and my family. Your collaboration with the airsoft community has been invaluable. You've quite likely saved me from stress-induced prostate cancer. All kidding aside, I've been fortunate enough to work with the FSAQ, and I know that your listening and understanding have been extremely important. It's not easy to navigate the turbulent waters between the waves of hunters, anti-gun lobbyists, sport shooters and people from various industries as you do.

Thanks to you and your team, last night I was interviewed about this on the radio, and I asked the host (who plays airsoft) to mention your excellent work on air to make sure that the NDP doesn't get all the accolades.

Thank you so much!

I was very happy to get that email. I received a second one, from François Gauthier, the vice-president of the Fédération sportive d’airsoft du Québec. He said the following:

On behalf of the Fédération Sportive d'airsoft du Québec and the Quebec airsoft community, we would like to thank the Bloc Québécois, especially [the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia] and her team for listening to the issues and problems that Bill C-21 could have caused as it was introduced by the federal government.

We would also like to thank the assistant to [the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia], Ariane Francoeur, for her professionalism and for following up with us on the progress of the work, as well as for taking the time to explain to us the details of the bill's progress in the SECU committee.

We remain open to continue working with the Bloc Québécois in the future if any regulations are being created that would affect our sport.

Personally, and on behalf of the entire Quebec airsoft community, thank you for listening to our concerns.

Cordially.

It was also very nice to get that email. Yesterday, I highlighted the incredible work of my assistant, Ariane Francoeur. I am pleased to be able to recognize her again today, through Mr. Gauthier.

It may not seem like much, but I think that every member of the Bloc Québécois caucus told me that they were getting positive comments about how airsoft guns were taken out of the bill. We will take it while we can. We are very pleased about that. I think it is unfortunate that Bill C‑21 got such bad press as a result of the government's controversial amendments because there are some good things about this bill. There was talk about domestic violence and ways of better protecting women who are victims of it. Despite the rhetoric that we have been hearing since yesterday from members of the Conservative Party, who are saying that there is nothing good about this bill, I would remind them that they voted in favour of most of the amendments that were proposed.

The Bloc Québécois tabled a total of 17 amendments, and 16 were adopted. Most of them, such as the ones concerning magazines, were adopted unanimously. I talk about this a lot, and it is difficult to explain in just a few minutes during questions and comments. I will therefore take the time to explain it. Right now, we can go to a store and buy a magazine for a legal firearm without presenting a licence. That is what the Danforth killer did a few years ago. He stole a firearm. He did not have a licence and the firearm was not registered in his name. However, he went to a store and lawfully purchased a magazine. He put the magazine in the firearm and went on to kill two people and injure 13 others in Toronto.

We wondered why there was no requirement for a valid possession and acquisition licence for buying a magazine and ammunition. That is what is happening now with ammunition and firearms. It was Danforth Families for Safe Communities who brought this problem to our attention, saying that this should have been in place long ago and that it will prevent this type of situation from happening again.

I had the opportunity, or took the initiative, to move these amendments. We were talking about roughly six amendments. The first is very important, but the ones that followed are consequential amendments because if something is changed in the legislation, then it needs to be changed several times where it is mentioned.

I moved this amendment and I saw the wonderful unanimity in committee. Even the Conservative Party voted in favour of this. It is very gratifying to see that people want to improve things, that they want to move things forward. I thank the Conservative Party for voting in favour of these amendments, except for one. As I was saying, these are consequential amendments. It would be unreasonable not to adopt them all.

The Conservatives' strategy, since there was a gag order, was to take turns. Every 15 minutes or so, new members would arrive at committee to fill the five minutes allotted to them. Members would repeatedly ask the same questions that had already been asked by a colleague. These were questions for public servants. Someone who had just arrived, a Conservative colleague, said that this amendment on magazines did not make sense, even though the Conservative Party had previously agreed to all the amendments on magazines. He said that it was unreasonable to put hunters in that position. He said that if someone wanted to go hunting for a particular rare bird and ran out of magazines, they were going to miss the hunt as a result, which is unfair. The officials respectfully pointed out to him that if the person could not go out and get the magazine because his licence had not been renewed or was not valid, he would not be able to go hunting or use his firearm either.

His comments were not even relevant to the situation. It just goes to show that even though someone may try to look like they know what they are talking about, that is not always the case. The amendment on magazines was a win for all the groups that had been calling for it, such as PolyRemembers and many other gun control advocacy groups.

We have heard a little bit about the yellow flag measure, which allows chief firearms officers to suspend or revoke a licence in cases of domestic violence. We wanted to improve certain passages where, in the initial bill, chief firearms officers were given a little too much discretion as to when the person had to surrender the licence or the guns and to whom. This was strengthened thanks to amendments from the Bloc Québécois that went on to be adopted. The government, the NDP and even the Green Party, which does not have the right to vote in committee, but had proposed the same amendments, were in favour. As I recall, the Conservatives also voted in favour of these amendments. It was another great example of unanimity to strengthen measures to combat domestic violence. These are the kinds of real gains that can be made in committee.

When we were working on this file, we realized that it was easier to accomplish some things through legislation and others through regulation. I nevertheless consider it a win that the minister has made a public commitment to certain things. That was the case for the pre-authorization of firearms.

As I already explained here in the House, a pharmaceutical company that wants to bring a new drug to market, for example, must have Health Canada's approval before being able to do so. This does not seem to happen with firearms. Sometimes, guns are put on the market and, at some point, the RCMP realizes that they were not classified properly. We wondered if the RCMP could be consulted before guns arrive on the market, and how to do that. We racked our brains. It was quite complicated, but the minister finally agreed to do it when he announced new amendments in early May.

We are pleased about that. Obviously, a promise is a promise. We have seen the Liberal government breaking its promises on many occasions, so we hope that the minister will act quickly on this right after Bill C‑21 is passed. There is nothing stopping him from doing that.

We also need to update the regulations on large-capacity magazines. To be honest, it was PolyRemembers that made me aware of that issue.

When I asked the minister or public servants whether I was mistaken or whether large-capacity magazines were still legal in Canada, I was told that they were no longer legal. However, when I visited the RCMP vault, I saw that some magazines can be blocked with the help of a small rivet. For example, a magazine with 30 rounds can be blocked and limited to five rounds. The magazine therefore becomes legal because it is technically considered a five-round magazine. However, it is very easy for a mass murderer to simply remove the rivet to create a high-capacity magazine. That has happened in Canada and it cost the lives of dozens of people. We then said that, since we were considering the matter of magazines, perhaps we could strengthen the regulations in that regard. That is what the minister committed to doing. I am also very pleased about that. Once again, he will have to keep his word on that.

Then, there is the issue of the much-discussed prospective definition, which is something that I would not necessarily consider as a loss, but something we would have liked. It comes up often. It means that it applies only to future firearms. This means that, as we speak and even after Bill C‑21 passes, there will still be over 482 models of assault-style firearms in circulation in this country.

We therefore suggested to the minister that they should be banned by decree. Amongst them, a few firearms had been identified as being reasonably used for hunting. Let us set them aside for now and ask the Canadian firearms advisory committee for a recommendation on how to classify them. Let us ban the others that are still in circulation right away.

The minister can put an order into effect immediately, tomorrow morning, today or yesterday. He could have already done that. This easy solution is available to him, and I think it is a reasonable solution. I hope he will do that as well.

I would like to go over a few things that happened in committee. As I mentioned before, this was my first real experience of a clause-by-clause review in committee, and it was extremely interesting. It is worth pointing out that the process happened late at night, when I imagine not too many reporters were watching. Some really interesting things happened that deserve to be highlighted, such as the moment the Bloc Québécois saved the government's handgun freeze.

There was a clause in Bill C‑21 that exempted certain persons from the handgun freeze, such as sport shooters in an Olympic discipline. Everyone else was covered by the handgun freeze. The NDP usually supports just about everything the government does, but it disagreed on this specific point. Both the Conservative Party and the NDP proposed amendments that would have made the handgun freeze inoperative and completely irrelevant by including too many people in the exemption.

Interestingly, at that point, just before the vote, the Liberal member for Kings—Hants logged on and spoke. His government tried to prevent him from speaking, but with committee giving unanimous consent, he was able to speak before voting on these amendments. He abstained, which made it a tie. The votes were equal on both sides, for and against. In a very rare occurrence, the committee chair himself had to cast a vote, and he voted with the government.

It is fair to say that if the Bloc Québécois had also abstained or voted against these amendments, the government's handgun freeze would have simply fallen by the wayside. When we say that we want better gun control in this country, that is part of it. This is a measure that the government has proposed. The Bloc Québécois is true to its values on this issue, and it has remained true to its values on the handgun freeze as well.

I see that my time is running out. I still have a lot to say, but what I want to discuss the most is ghost guns. When we went to visit the RCMP vault, we saw how easy it is to assemble an illegal weapon from gun parts ordered over the Internet. The police officers made us aware of it too. Organized crime and illegal firearms trafficking are all part of it.

The measure included in Bill C‑21 is a good one, and we are proud of it.

I would be pleased to take questions from my colleagues.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, although I was not at committee, I have heard that the hon. member's interventions were well received and discussed in committee.

She ended her speech tonight speaking about ghost guns, and that is something I have been discussing with our local chief of police. We have had a few walks to talk about this and the guns that look like they are real but are really just toy guns and how that really makes policing a lot more difficult in our communities when guns pop out of nowhere, such as ghost guns.

Therefore, the impact on our police services could be very positive. They could then do a better job of helping with safety within our communities. Could the hon. member talk about how the police forces in her local community are receiving this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I have been in contact with a number of police services in the course of studying this bill, and I can say that this is being very well received.

I mentioned earlier about how people can order parts on the Internet. I think we also need to improve what happens at the border. I am not saying that the people working there are not doing a good job. They are doing a great job. Unfortunately, they are under-resourced.

Bill C-21 is good. We looked closely at ghost guns, which will certainly improve police work. However, one more thing also needs to be done. We need to intercept trains and firearms passing through the Port of Montreal along with stolen cars. We need to inspect more packages that come through the mail. This is also part of the fight against firearms trafficking. I think more needs to be done.

It is great that the measure on ghost guns was included in the bill. That said, the guns most commonly found on the streets of Montreal and in the hands of street gangs are those from the illegal firearms trade, so I think a lot of work needs to be done in that regard as well.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the airsoft industry. There are about 320 businesses and 1,350 staff and employees in that industry. These rules that are coming could negate any of that sort of industry and business. I wonder if the member could just elaborate on her thoughts. I know she mentioned that this was a big concern. There is a lot of activity in that area and a lot of these are owned by visible minorities and immigrants, in the testimony that we heard. I wonder if the member could expand on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I referred to a specific company in Quebec City that sells airsoft guns. This will certainly help save many jobs in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. That is a good thing.

I would even go so far as to say that firearms vendors in general have nothing to fear. As I mentioned, Bill C‑21 will prohibit firearms that do not yet exist. It is not true that hunting rifles will be prohibited the instant Bill C‑21 is passed. People will be able to continue buying and using them. I believe that it is important to include that in the messaging, because that is how Bill C‑21 will be passed.

I am not saying that it is great to still have so many firearms that are considered assault weapons in circulation. As I was saying, the minister could take action by introducing an order in council for these firearms. However, for firearms that are reasonably used for hunting, everyone can rest assured. People can continue to use these firearms.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague when I was on the public safety committee and I absolutely share her joy in the victory that we were able to achieve for the airsoft community. I too have received many thanks from communities in my own riding and across British Columbia. That indeed is a good thing that the committee was able to achieve.

The member was there on the committee with me back in November of last year when those 11th-hour, ill-advised amendments dropped in the committee's lap and caused all of this uproar. If she will remember correctly, in December, one of the leading voices against those amendments came from indigenous communities. It culminated when the Assembly of First Nations came out with a very rare unanimous emergency resolution that its members were against the amendments. I have heard from many people in indigenous communities who have explained why they have depended on semi-automatic rifles to protect themselves when they were out hunting wildlife.

Can the member explain this for colleagues in the House? Is it her understanding that current makes and models of rifles and shotguns are not affected by Bill C-21? Can she also elaborate as to why it was important to insert an amendment in this bill that would recognize the rights that are upheld under section 35 of the Constitution Act?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a very good point. I enjoyed working with him in committee and I hope he will come back after the study of Bill C‑21.

The government's mistake in this whole story was to move these famous amendments without doing the necessary consultations ahead of time. Hunters and first nations communities apparently were not consulted before these amendments were tabled. I think that was the first mistake.

Then, the Bloc Québécois proposed pressing pause on the study and inviting witnesses to committee who did not have the chance to be heard. That is when we heard from first nations communities, who told us exactly what the member just said.

I think it was important to reiterate in the bill the fact that these rights are being respected. We do need to reassure people, because there are still all sorts of rumours circulating about Bill C‑21 that are not entirely true.

One thing that is entirely true is that first nations communities are going to continue using firearms for hunting, for their subsistence. Bill C‑21, in its current form and as it will be passed, will have no impact on that. I think that it is important to reiterate that for the first nations communities. There are two in my riding, and I am sure they will be pleased with how things unfolded for Bill C‑21.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am feeling emotional as I rise today to thank and congratulate my colleague, the Bloc Québécois public safety critic.

As she said herself, it was her first time taking part in the clause-by-clause consideration of such an important bill. One day, when she is a grandmother, she will look back and see that she built a better bill because she was able to make suggestions throughout the process, instead of simply criticizing and being partisan. It is a reflection of how the Bloc Québécois works. She was able to propose improvements for the common good.

Tonight, I am proud to be seated beside her, and I am proud of her work. I am old. I have white hair. However, my colleague is quite young and has a great career ahead of her. This evening, I am proud to congratulate her on behalf of the Bloc Québécois for all the excellent work she has done.

Now that we are nearing the end of the process, I would like to ask her a question. If she had one thing to say to the rookies who are going to join us, what would she say? She can speak from the heart. Where do we start with a clause-by-clause analysis?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my whip for her kind words. I am a bit emotional.

Where do we start? That is a good question. I think that it is important to be well prepared, to know one's file, even if it is not easy. When I was first given the public safety file, I did not know what it was all about. Today, I am very comfortable with my files and talking about an issue as sensitive as firearms.

Collaboration with other parties, with the government especially, and with groups that work on these issues is important. We talked about PolyRemembers, the National Association of Women and Law, and many women's groups and associations that reached out to us. We need to work with these people, trust them and trust ourselves when it comes time to propose amendments. I think that that would be a good place to start.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the following. Should the government have started by dealing with the illegal weapons that are coming across Canada's borders? That is a public safety issue that has become a political issue. Would it have been easier to do things differently?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think that problems necessarily need to be ranked in order of priority.

The one does not exclude the other. We worked on a bill to strengthen gun control in this country and, as I said, some of its measures will strengthen measures we can take to counter family violence. That is very good. At the same time, we can change things.

The Minister of Public Safety can develop regulations, invest more at the borders and work to improve coordination among police forces. Work can also be done at the Canada Border Services Agency. All of this can occur while Bill C‑21 is being reviewed. These things are not mutually exclusive.

I think that a lot remains to be accomplished, but this is definitely a positive step forward. Naturally, firearms trafficking needs to be addressed. I think that the government is beginning to understand that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and offer my thoughts on Bill C-21 at third reading.

I say that with a bit of amazement because I cannot believe we have actually made it to third reading. This bill received first reading in this House on May 30 of last year. We got through second reading in fairly short order, but at committee stage, things really got lost and all hell broke loose, so to speak.

I remember participating as the NDP's public safety critic. We had scheduled eight witness meetings to look at the first version of this bill. Things were going along quite well. There were some disagreements around the table, but there was not any of the friction that suggested there would be a major catastrophe in the making.

That all changed in November when we arrived at the clause-by-clause portion of the bill. Before that meeting started, every party was responsible for reviewing the witness testimony, reviewing the briefs that had been submitted, and working with legislative drafters to put together our amendments. Once those were submitted to the clerk, as is the normal course of things, the clerk then distributed them to all committee members.

It was quite a surprise when we saw just how big the amendment package was and just how expanded the scope of the bill was going to be. Most of the amendments came from the government. There were a couple in particular that completely sent the committee off its rails.

The amendments landed on our laps at the 11th hour. It was obvious that there had been no warning to committee members. The Liberal members of the committee were introducing those amendments on behalf of the government. They read them into the record, but I do not think they actually had a clue as to the monumental nature of the amendments.

It was clear that the amendments were not backed by any witness testimony because of the significant nature of how they were changing the bill. We, as committee members, never had the opportunity to question witnesses on the bill taking shape.

That completely derailed things. That started in November 2022, and it is only just recently that the committee stage of the bill was finally able to complete its job. That is an incredible amount of time for one committee to be occupied with a single bill.

If we look at the mandate of the public safety and national security committee, it is one of the most important committees. It is responsible for reviewing the policies and legislation of multiple agencies, whether it is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Officer of the Correctional Investigator or the RCMP.

There are two other bills. Bill C-20 is going to provide an important oversight body for the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-26 is going to seek to upgrade our cybersecurity infrastructure. Both of those bills have been held up because of the shenanigans going on with Bill C-21.

I listened to the debate all day yesterday when this bill was going through report stage, and today when it was going through third reading. Unfortunately, because of some of the speeches in this House, there is a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of people have the wrong idea of what is included in this bill.

My Conservative colleagues do make a big deal in their speeches about standing up for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities, and I take no fault with that. I proudly stand here and say the same thing. It is troubling because it is alluding to something that is actually not in the bill. That illusion for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities is that their rifle or shotgun, if it is semi-automatic, is going to be prohibited by this bill.

Let me clearly say this for the record: That is not the case. Bill C-21 is not going to do that. If someone has a current make or model of a rifle or shotgun, they are licensed and legally own that firearm, after this bill receives royal assent, they will continue to be able to use it.

That is a fact. So far, when I have brought it up in questions, my Conservative colleagues have been unable to refute that. I have challenged multiple Conservative MPs to name one rifle or shotgun that is going to be prohibited by Bill C-21. In every single instance, they have deflected and swerved away to go back to comfortable talking points, because they cannot do it. I will tell colleagues why. It is because I am not reading Conservative talking points. I am going to actually read from the text of the bill.

In the new section that is going to add to the definition of a prohibited firearm, it mentions that it is:

...a firearm that is not a handgun and that

(i) discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(ii) was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more, and

(iii) is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force...

The last point is one that everyone seems to skip over, but it is the key part.

Current makes and models are not going to be affected by Bill C-21. Future makes and models that come into the market after this bill receives royal assent will be affected. However, current owners will not be affected by Bill C-21.

Conservatives will then seek to muddy the waters even further. I have heard a lot of reference to the firearms advisory committee. They say that the minister is going to bring this back and staff it with Liberal appointees, who are going to make suggestions about what firearms should be prohibited and then act on the suggestions. I have a news flash for my Conservative colleagues. This is a power that the government already has. It does not need a firearms advisory committee.

I would direct my Conservative colleagues to the existing section 84(1) of the Criminal Code. It says right there that the government can change the definition of what a prohibited firearm is when it mentions “any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm”. “Prescribed” is the key word there, because that means it can be done by cabinet decree. If they do not believe me, how did the government get the authority in May 2020 to issue an order in council? Here, 1,500 makes and models were done through the Canada Gazette under existing powers.

All this ballyhoo over a firearms advisory council, as well as all the hoopla that we have heard in this House about the dangers of that council coming into being, is a complete red herring. It is smoke and mirrors. This is a power the government already has. In fact, I would rebut them on that argument by saying that if the minister currently has that power to do this unilaterally through an order in council cabinet decree, would it not be a good thing to have an advisory council to at least talk to the minister about how maybe that would not be a good idea?

If we can ensure that the advisory council has indigenous representation, representation from the hunting community and representation from the sport shooting community, in my mind, that is a good thing. I will let them continue to say that, but they know they cannot argue with me on those facts. Again, I am reading from the bill and from existing provisions of the Criminal Code. If they are going to try to muddy the waters, they can try to argue their way out of it, but the facts cannot be changed.

I want to turn to something more positive, with the airsoft community. Last summer, I had the pleasure of visiting the Victoria fish and game club. I do not know if colleagues have been to Vancouver Island, but in the middle of my riding is the Malahat Mountain. It is the big mountain that separates the Cowichan Valley from the city of Langford and the whole west shore. It is the traditional territory of the Malahat people, but on top of it is where the Victoria fish and game club is, on a beautiful property. Right beside it, there is an amazing forest setting for the club's airsoft games. I went out there with one of my constituency assistants on a weekend. They invited us to come and see a match. We got to don the referee uniforms, so that we could walk out in the middle of a pitched battle. I think one of my constituency assistants accidentally got shot.

It was so fun to see how much fun these players were having, to talk to them about how passionate they were about their sport and to really understand that this is more than a hobby for them. This is something that allows them to get out into the great outdoors with their family and friends.

They were really worried about Bill C-21 because of a section in the bill that would basically turn their airsoft rifles into prohibited devices. I invited some of them, with other colleagues around the committee table, to come to committee, to submit briefs and to say their piece. I have to say that the representatives of the airsoft industry, the manufacturers and the players associations did themselves proud. They made a good argument, and they convinced those around the committee table. They did what is done in a democratic system. They fought for change, and they achieved it.

The NDP amendment that was put forward to delete the offending sections from the bill was passed. That is a victory for the airsoft community. All they are asking for is not the sledgehammer approach of legislation that was in the original version of Bill C-21, but a regulatory approach. They are more than willing to work with government on the regulatory approach. That message was heard, and that is something that all parliamentarians can celebrate.

Let me turn to the handgun freeze and the amendment that we put forward as an attempt to expand the exceptions of the handgun freeze to allow for other sport shooting disciplines. As the bill is currently written, at this third reading stage, the only exemptions that exist are limited to people who are at an extremely elite level. They are Olympic athletes and Paralympic athletes. I use the terms “exemptions” and “exceptions” interchangeably.

After speaking to members of my community who participate in the International Practical Shooting Confederation and speaking to members who are in single-action shooting as well, I felt that these people are athletes. They train for what they do. They are passionate about their sport. They deserve to have exemptions as well. Therefore, I put forward an amendment to try to expand that. That amendment almost passed. There was a little bit of confusion on the Liberal side when that amendment came to a vote.

When I tuned in to watch the committee hearing at that stage, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Liberal member for Kings—Hants speaking in support of our amendment. It was a wonderful surprise to see, except that when it came to a vote, unfortunately, he abstained. It resulted in a five-five tie; of course, this had to be broken by the Liberal Chair. We came really close.

I have received a lot of flak from certain sectors of society for my stance on this. That is okay; I can take it. I am not going to apologize for standing here and making an attempt to fix the bill on behalf of my constituents who simply want to be able to practise their sport. To those who are arguing against that, I would simply point to the submission that was given to our committee by none other than the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They said:

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.

That is what I was basing my amendment on, as well as the interventions made by my constituents. We tried our best at committee to make that change. Unfortunately, because of the votes falling the way they did with the Liberals and Bloc, it did not pass.

I will give another reason. The top IPSC competitors were telling me that they shoot about 50,000 rounds of ammunition a year. That is an incredible amount. We have to understand that a handgun is essentially a mechanical device. If someone is shooting it 50,000 times a year, it will break down. Sometimes, handguns have to be replaced. In my mind, it was unfair, not allowing an exception for an athlete of that calibre to have the means to be able to replace a tool that they use to compete.

We may have lost this particular battle, but what I would say to members of those sport shooting disciplines is that I will continue to pursue this issue. I will find other avenues to fight to make sure that their sport has an exemption.

We have completed the report stage part of the bill, but there has been some controversy from some women's groups who were unhappy with the red-flag provisions of the law, and I understand that. When I approached the committee hearings on this, I understood the controversy that existed around red-flag provisions. There were some women's groups that felt that adding this extra layer of bureaucracy through the court system did not serve women or other people who were in vulnerable situations where firearms might be present. They felt that we should have a properly equipped and responsive police force, and I agree with them.

I will turn critics' attention to members of the National Association of Women and the Law, because when Bill C-21 was reported back to the House, they made some public tweets, which are all up there for people to read. They said that with all the amendments that were proposed, these are some of the ways that the bill would make women safer: “The provision on licence revocation when someone has committed violence is now strengthened and clarified. A licence must be revoked when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual may have engaged in family violence.” They also said, “people who have been subject to a protection order will now be ineligible to hold a licence if they ‘could pose’ a threat or risk to the safety of another person. This way, safety comes first.” That is the onus test.

They went on to say, “The Bill had no timelines for reacting to danger and domestic violence. Thanks to the adoption of our recommendations, there is now a statutory duty to act within 24 hours. This will protect women at the critical time of separation, when risk of violence is at its highest.”

A lot about the bill has been subsumed by the debate over hunting rifles, shotguns, airsoft and the handgun freeze. However, it is important for us to realize that, in the heart of the bill, there are actually some very important measures, which have now been improved by the committee. I have worked with members of the National Association of Women and the Law, and I respect the submissions they have made. If they are willing to come out and publicly endorse the bill in this way, I am glad to have their support as a stakeholder, and I give it a lot of credence.

I also want to talk about ghost guns, which relate to another “unsung hero” part of the bill. We heard from law enforcement, and I want to read into the record the testimony that came from Inspector Michael Rowe, who is a staff sergeant in the Vancouver Police Department. He said:

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.

That is the request coming from law enforcement. We know that this is a growing problem, and they asked for a specific legislative fix to the problem. I am proud to see that the public safety committee delivered on that request from law enforcement.

Much has been said about indigenous communities. They are, of course, the ones who led the way in opposition to the bill. I remember, back in December, when the Assembly of First Nations came out with a unanimous emergency resolution opposing those eleventh-hour amendments that were made by the Liberal government. They said that the amendments went against the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They helped us to understand, as parliamentarians, that these are not toys or hobbies; rather, they are a way of life. In some indigenous communities, they are necessary for the protection of life. I am glad to see that the committee listened, and no current make or model of a rifle or shotgun that is currently in use in indigenous communities is touched by Bill C-21. The committee went further and added a clause, which now references section 35 of the Constitution Act to show that indigenous rights are upheld.

I will conclude by saying I can honestly go back to the hunters, farmers and indigenous communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and tell them their currently owned firearms are safe. I am glad we were able to force the government's hand on this matter.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for all his work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Throughout this debate, I have been hearing a lot of misinformation and disinformation, especially from gun lobby groups, as well as the Conservative Party, but a lot of that NRA north style attacks and disinformation. I was wondering if he could comment on how he dealt with that on the committee and what he takes from the debates that have gone on for the last little while.

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

Madam Speaker, to anyone who is thinking of joining the public safety committee, they better have a thick skin. I will say without a doubt that is probably the most-watched committee out of any parliamentary committee. One can probably see one's actions reflected in real time just by watching one's Twitter feed.

On dealing with the gun lobby, I do not like using that term all the time. I know of the groups that exist like the CCFR, but a lot of my ordinary constituents are also logged in to the gun lobby. A lot of them came forward with some very legitimate concerns, and I am glad a lot of committee members took the time to listen to those.

Yes, some of the vitriol I have seen on Twitter has been a little “out there”, and I have just tried to keep myself straight and narrow to my principles and I am glad we were able to do the work to make sure the bill is where it is at today.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to be positive with the member first before I am a bit more on the pointed side. Even though I am not a permanent member of the committee, I have been sitting in at public safety quite a bit. He is greatly missed. He is much preferred on that committee than his current NDP colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, because he does have a lot of common sense. I want to congratulate him on getting the airsoft exemption through.

To get more on the pointed side, he talked about the necessary changes in the last-minute amendment. He talked about that at length. This was brought in by the Liberal government, going after hunters and sport shooters, their tools and rifles and shotguns. We challenged in that committee that it was out of scope. We had a chance to put it completely to bed, but that member voted in support to keep that in there.

I would like to give the member the opportunity to maybe apologize to the hunters right across Canada for putting them through that unnecessary pain and putting the whole committee through the pain of months when this could have been shut down back in November.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the kind words. He also has been a good person to work with. What a lot of people forget about in these heated debates is that we are all human beings. We may come from different political backgrounds, but a lot of us actually work in a very respectful way.

In regard to the member's question, I will let my actions speak instead of my words. If the member will recall, in early February I put a motion on notice to refer those amendments to the Speaker. It was that threat of a motion that actually I think was the straw that broke the camel's back and forced the Liberals to withdraw the amendments.

To the hunters, farmers and indigenous communities in my riding, my actions made up for that, and that is what forced the Liberals to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was emphasizing that farmers, indigenous people and law-abiding gun owners did not need to fear this legislation, and I suspect he is doing that because he recognizes there is a great deal of misrepresentation of the reality surrounding Bill C-21.

Many, including myself, would argue the primary motivating factor for the Conservative Party has more to do with fundraising and using Bill C-21 as a fundraising tool as opposed to seeing it as something good for increasing public safety in our communities. What does he believe the Conservatives' spreading of misinformation on the issue does to the public perception of what is taking place?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I referred to Bill C-21 as the goose that lays the golden eggs for the Conservative Party because it certainly has enjoyed its financial windfalls.

To his question more generally about misinformation, I took the time in my speech today to read from the bill. I systematically refuted Conservative talking points. Every time I have challenged Conservative MPs to name a rifle or shotgun, they have been unable to do so.

I will leave it up to the Conservatives to explain themselves, but it certainly makes our job a lot harder in this place when we are trying our best to present the facts and what is actually in the bill and it gets collided with misinformation again and again. That makes our job very hard. It does not mean I am going to stop doing my job, but it does make it more difficult.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hold my colleague in high regard. I had the opportunity to tell him that earlier. I think we worked well together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is too bad he was not there for the study of the bill.

One thing I am having a hard time understanding—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I must interrupt the hon. member because there is a problem with the interpretation.

The problem has now been resolved.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the interpreters, who do an incredible job every day.

I was saying that my colleague and I work very well together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is too bad he was not there for the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, there still seems to be a problem with the interpretation.

Sitting Suspended

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It starts and then it stops again. I will therefore suspend the proceedings while we find a solution.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 7:33 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 7:34 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The problem has now been resolved, so the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia can continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the interpreters and technicians again. I think it is a plot to make me repeat for a third time that I really appreciate my NDP colleague. I really enjoyed working with him at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is too bad he was not there for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑21.

There is one thing I am having a hard time understanding. It is the red-flag measure, which the government presented as a measure that could help protect women who are victims of intimate partner violence. Ultimately, what we heard from dozens of women's groups from across the country is that they fear this measure will shift the onus from law enforcement to victims. Even some lawyers testified that it could increase the workload of the courts, which are already busy enough at this time. Everyone agreed that it was not a good measure, and that it would not do anything more to help women who are victims of intimate partner violence.

The NDP is usually in favour of such positions. Like the Bloc Québécois, they want to do more to protect women. However, while the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party voted against these government clauses, the NDP supported them.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to explain why, because I still do not understand this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the ability to answer in a more fulsome way. I was not at the committee. All I can do is reiterate what I said in my speech, that if we look at the public statement that comes from the National Association of Women and the Law, it took the time to say that with the amendments that were adopted at committee, it feels that this bill would make it much safer for women who are in difficult and dangerous situations involving a firearm.

The National Association of Women and the Law has a lot of credibility. I valued working with it. I take a public statement like that on the current version of Bill C-21 at face value and accept its ultimate judgment on this bill and what it would do for women in violent situations.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his incredible work on this file. I have heard throughout my constituency of a great amount of respect for the work he has done, and the airsoft community has been very clear in its appreciation.

I am just wondering if the member could answer a question. I have talked to a lot of gun owners and indigenous people across my riding, and one of the things I have actually found, for the most part, is that there is a common-sense reasonable discussion. I really respect the people who have talked to me, and we have had really good conversations about this issue, because it is complex and there are challenges to it.

I am just wondering if the member could talk about how the government could do a better job of actually talking to the people who use these tools for very specific reasons that do not harm the larger community. How could that be better reflected in the government's legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, this allows me to give a shout-out to our dear colleague, the member for Nunavut, because she also helped educate me on the way of life in the north.

It became very clear, after these amendments were dropped. We had indigenous witnesses come before our committee, and it was clear that consultation had not happened. Given that the government has attached so much importance to that relationship and the fact that it has passed legislation saying federal laws had to be in harmony with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it was quite obvious that those amendments were dropped with no consultation, and through indigenous efforts and the pressure indigenous people put on government, they can take a bow, because they are the ones who forced the government to backtrack and respect their way of life.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I will be sharing my time with the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

I want to start by expressing my gratitude to the good people of Don Valley East for giving me the privilege to be in this House and to speak on this issue. All of us are fortunate to have the opportunity to come into this esteemed House and speak on behalf of our communities to bring their concerns and their voices here. I am honoured to be here and to listen to my colleagues, and I mean that, because it is a really important thing. I am honoured to be in this House and listen to so many different perspectives from across the country. It speaks to the uniqueness we all bring to this House. Canada is a vast country, with diverse regions and a multitude of different voices, opinions and political views, and we often do not see eye to eye, even within our own parties. That is the beautiful thing about this House, that it maintains our good democracy in this country.

Many members know that I spent a lot of time in the Ontario legislature, and when I first arrived here, I was a bit taken aback. I thought this was even slower than the Ontario legislature. When things happen, it is a drawn-out process. We go to committees, go to caucus or sit in the House. However, there is a reason for that. It took me a couple of months to figure out why things work the way they work around here. It is because of those different opinions from across the country. We need to foster a mutual understanding of each other because we bring all these different perspectives. The more time I spend here, the better I understand the diversity of opinions of my colleagues, their passion and their motivations. The choice of words they use in this House makes a huge difference.

I want to take the opportunity to share my experience with respect to this bill and talk a bit about my community, my experiences and what this bill means to me.

I come from a community in the Don Mills corridor. It is an interesting neighbourhood because there are homes that are worth, in some cases, $7 million, and there are homes not too far away, a two- or three-minute drive, that are Toronto community housing. There is diversity in economics, but also a diversity in cultures.

I grew up in a section of the community where there were some economic challenges. Like many neighbourhoods in the city of Toronto, my community experienced a lot of gun violence. Without a question, there is an association between poverty and gun violence. It is a fact in a city like mine. During my youth, growing up in my community, I probably knew several young men, the majority of whom were Black, who were murdered in my community as a result of gun violence. Many neighbourhoods in Toronto face this challenge, and there is no question that poverty is linked to that. If we go into any neighbourhood in Toronto experiencing challenges with respect to gun violence and ask people under the age of 21 if they know someone who has died because of gun violence, the answer is usually yes. That is a fact in the communities that are economically challenged in Toronto.

In my community, growing up with this experience opened up a new perspective for me. I wanted to look for ways to balance the playing field and open up opportunities for young people. That is what made me get involved in politics as a young man. It drove me to become a youth worker in Scarborough for many years. It was what made me run for school board trustee and then go on to the Ontario legislature, where a lot of my work had to do with finding opportunities for young people who go through these challenges.

I can remember when I was the minister of children and youth in Ontario and I went to a community called Mount Olive in Toronto. I was with a group of about 40 young people between the ages of maybe seven and 13. I remember asking this young girl who was walking with us if she liked her community. She said that she loved her community because there were fewer gunshots this year than the previous year. That shocked me, because that was her reality.

The fight against gun violence is nothing new in a city like Toronto, in many parts of our city. Again, I am sharing my perspective, a Toronto perspective from a community like mine. Gun violence usually impacts people who come from poorer communities and racialized Canadians.

There is no question, and I have heard many times in this room, that the guns causing the crime are illegal guns. That is factual. The majority of these guns are illegal. I think there is something bigger here. By freezing the sale of handguns, we have the opportunity to send out such a strong message to Canadians that we are better off as a society when we do not have to resort to owning guns and using guns. It is such a simple concept to me.

I have collaborated over the years with many communities that have been torn apart, literally, by gun violence. I have sat with mothers, a dozen mothers, who have all lost a child. I have sat with advocates who, for 20 or 30 years, have been looking for ways to find solutions to the problems that gun violence brings forward.

I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to those folks, because they make a difference in our city and they work, day and night, to look for ways to mitigate that violence. These are not people who are put up for the Order of Canada or the Order of Ontario. These are people who keep their head down. They work on the ground level, on the street, and they look for ways to find solutions.

I will tell members this. For many years, in fact for decades, these advocates who witnessed the violence in their community would say that they agree with what this bill is doing. They agree that we should stop selling handguns in Canada, and they would agree that we have to have stricter rules in place for people who distribute guns in the community. It is not the kids, the young men and others in the community who are actually out there manufacturing these guns. These guns are being brought in from different jurisdictions and they are being used in the community to terrorize the community.

I want to go back to my original point. I have skipped three or four pages; time goes by so quickly here when one is speaking. My original point was that we are here as MPs with probably one of the greatest privileges, to come and speak on behalf of our community, and just because we may have different opinions, that does not mean that another member is right or that I am right. What it means is that we are bringing forward opinions from our communities.

Last year, I did a survey in Don Valley East. We send out a survey every year. We sent it out to the entire community, and just under 2,000 surveys came back. I want to share some of the numbers. Most questions were multiple-choice, but there was one question where I asked people if they support the freezing of handgun sales in Canada. I want to share the numbers. Remember, this is 2,000 people, so we know that, without question, there is a very low margin of error and it is good data. There were 82.2% of people in my community who said they do not support the sale of handguns; 8.7% were neutral and only 8.6% were opposed to this bill.

To me, that is exactly the message that I am bringing here to the House. I understand that we all have different perspectives, but in a community like mine, the importation of guns, the sales of guns and the use of guns have no place. My community does not support it and, on top of that, we know that, over the years, it has been really difficult and really challenging for a community like Don Valley East and the city of Toronto when it comes to gun violence.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that stood out to me very strongly was the member's statement that he does not believe Canadians should own guns. That is a view that he says his constituents share.

I represent a rural riding where people enjoy hunting and sport shooting. Generations of my constituents have passed down firearms to their relatives who enjoy hunting and sport shooting. They would take great issue with that. I would also point out to the hon. member that in Toronto, last year and so far this year, half of the individuals who have been charged with homicides have been individuals out on bail.

Even though we differ on whether Canadians should own firearms, does he at least agree that we should be evidence-based and go after the real cause of what is happening with crime, which is individuals who are out on bail, repeat offenders, rather than going after the law-abiding firearms owners in my riding of Fundy Royal?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be factual and we are going to resort to truths here, the member should read the bill. The bill is very clear about gun ownership. It says that if people have rifles, certain types of hunting rifles are still available. There is a clause in there that would allow people with handguns to continue to have their handguns; they just cannot be traded or resold. I would just suggest that the member read the bill for clarity and he would understand what the actual rules are. The farmers and the folks who hunt, who need those firearms, would still have the opportunity to use the appropriate gun for the work they do.

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

Madam Speaker, I often hear the government touting Bill C-21 as a bill that bans assault-style firearms. That is how it presented the bill to groups like PolyRemembers, by saying that this bill would finally ban assault-style firearms.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. What we are seeing is that, in May 2020, the government issued an order in council banning 1,500 guns, including the AR‑15, which is quite popular and was used in a mass shooting in Canada.

Today, even after the passage of Bill C‑21, the WK180‑C will still be in circulation. That is a gun that uses the same magazine and ammunition as the AR-15. It is a semi-automatic weapon that works almost the same way and that is also an assault-style firearm. That gun will still be in circulation even after Bill C‑21 is passed.

I am wondering how the government can say that Bill C‑21 bans assault weapons when the definition of a prohibited weapon that is proposed in this bill is prospective, meaning that it will apply only to weapons that will come on the market in the future. I must have missed something. When we ask the minister to issue an order in council banning weapons similar to the AR-15, he does nothing.

I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on that.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the advocacy that she has taken on gun violence. In question period, I often hear her speak on the issues that are impacting communities in different parts of the country, and I just want to say thanks for her advocacy.

Going back to my point, we all have different opinions on how we should do things around here. I think this bill is a well-balanced approach to looking for ways to mitigate gun violence in our country, and I am proud to support it today.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up some very important points. Our country is very diverse and there are different opinions. I would like to hear more from the member regarding what kind of impact this bill, coupled with many other measures, could end up having on a community like the one in his riding.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the part that I missed in my speech was about preventative programs. We know that just putting in place rules around guns and weapons is not enough. I think every single person in this House would agree that investing more into programs that prevent these crimes from happening is the right approach. Therefore, it has to be a multi-faceted approach to mitigating gun violence, and I am happy that the member asked that question.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoyed the speech by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I might differ on a few quibbles, but by and large I really appreciate his treatment of the matter.

It is an honour to join this discussion on strong, new federal firearms legislation and to join the voices of those supporting the progression of Bill C-21 through Parliament. The committee on public safety and national security has done the remarkable and arduous job of scrutinizing this bill. I would like to thank colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their constructive deliberations and collegiality. We would not have gotten this done without their invaluable co-operation, and every one of us has a stake in it.

We have heard from members who described the impact of gun violence in their communities. We have heard from survivors. We have heard from those who work with the government on many matters of public safety. They all make the point that we cannot lose another life to gun violence in this country. That is why I am so proud to be part of a government that cares about moving forward.

We know that, working with parliamentarians across the aisle and with Canadians at large, we can pass Bill C-21 as a package of reforms that would broadly enhance firearms safety throughout Canada. This would be the strongest firearms legislation we may ever see as parliamentarians. It would introduce stiffer sentencing for trafficking and new charges for illegal manufacturing of ghost guns and for altering the magazine or cartridge of a gun to exceed its lawful capacity. It would set out new wiretapping authorities for police to stop gun violence before it happens.

Bill C-21 would introduce a national freeze on handguns, and that would mean that the vast majority of individuals would no longer be able to transfer, that is buy, sell or import handguns into Canada. This would end the growth of handguns in Canada. This bill is also significant in how it would address the role of guns in gender-based violence, a pernicious issue we simply cannot ignore. It would prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands. Individuals with a restraining order against them, whether previous or current, would no longer be able to obtain a firearms licence.

New red-flag laws would allow courts to order the immediate removal of firearms from individuals who may be a danger to themselves or anyone else. Additionally, yellow-flag laws would allow chief firearms officers to suspend an individual's firearms licence if the CFO receives information calling into question their licence eligibility.

The identity of vulnerable people who provide information to the courts would be protected. Let me be clear that there would be no obligation for victims to use these laws. These provisions would not remove any current tools. They would be there to offer additional protection, additional tools in the tool box.

The unwavering goal of this legislation is to protect Canadians, particularly those who are most at risk. Statistics show that victims of intimate partner violence are about five times more likely to be killed if a firearm is present in the home. I would like to share a few more 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, and suicides by firearm accounted for 73% of all firearm deaths in Canada between 2000 and 2020. Fifty-eight per cent of crime guns are traced to domestic sources that are predominantly from straw purchasing and theft.

Reducing the number of guns in our communities would mean reducing the number of victims of gun violence. Making handguns unavailable for transfer and restricting their importation just makes sense. However, as we have said from the beginning, we are not targeting responsible handgun owners or those using firearms for purposes like hunting or sport shooting; this is about tackling violent crime and preventing senseless, tragic deaths.

We know that no single initiative will end the complex issue of gun violence. This bill is but one part of our comprehensive approach. We have seen far too many tragedies, including those recently in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. We have seen close to 16,000 incidents of violent crime involving firearms in Canada since 2010. We have been clear that firearms designed for war, capable of rapid reloading and discharge that can inflict catastrophic harm, have no place in our communities.

We have also been clear that we fully respect and recognize the traditional and cultural importance of hunting for indigenous communities. The government recognizes the importance of consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples to ensure consistency of federal laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill also includes a specific clause that clearly states that nothing in this definition is intended to derogate from the rights of indigenous people under section 35 of the Constitution.

It must be emphasized that guns that have already been designed and manufactured when the bill would come into force would not be affected. Other than so-called ghost guns, no existing rifle or shotgun whatsoever would be affected by this bill.

We would also be re-establishing the Canadian firearms advisory committee to independently review the classification of firearms on the current market with a diverse membership from across the country. This independent panel would be charged with making recommendations to the government about the classification of firearms and what constitutes reasonable use for hunting.

It is our goal to keep communities safe. I am confident that Bill C-21 would get that balance right. As we have said from the beginning, no single program or initiative can end gun violence. That is why this is just one of the many initiatives we are deploying, alongside border measures, investments in community infrastructure and banning assault-style weapons to keep our communities safe.

Since 2015, we have focused on the social causes of crime with programs like the $250-million building safer communities fund so that we can tackle gun crime and support community-led projects. We have also invested over $1 billion, since 2016, into the initiative to take action against gun and gang violence, which provides funding to provinces and territories to reduce gun and gang crime in our communities and enhances the capacity of the RCMP and CBSA to detect and disrupt gun smuggling. That is on top of the over $40 million provided annually through the national crime prevention strategy, which invests in community-based efforts that prevent youth involvement in crime and help address the risk factors that have been known to lead to criminal activity.

Federal officials have met with our federal, provincial and territorial colleagues to talk about the ways in which we could all make certain modifications to the bail system so that we can address specifically the challenges around repeat violent offenders who have used either firearms or other weapons, and this is how we will keep our communities safe through collaboration, discussion and multipronged approaches. Bill C-21 is a key piece of this puzzle.

I want to thank all members once again for their constructive input. I encourage all members to join me to today in making sure Bill C-21 moves forward.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety and the parliamentary secretary have stated numerous times that the majority of Canadians support the ban of hundreds of models that were previously unrestricted firearms, yet when the current government conducted consultations with 133,000 Canadians, 77% of those very Canadians stated that no further restrictions were required. Upon which data does the government rely when it makes the statement that the majority of Canadians support these additional bans?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I personally do not know which data it is using, but I know that the government has undertaken considerable effort to conduct consultations both recently and before Bill C-21 was initially launched in the 43rd Parliament. We have reached out to people at gun clubs, to gun afficionados, to sport shooters and so forth right across the country to ensure that we were approaching this matter in a correct way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his work in committee. As chair, he did a very good job during the clause-by-clause study in committee.

It is interesting to hear his opinion this evening. Usually, committee chairs have a duty to stay neutral. That being said, he had to take a position at some point during the clause-by-clause study. One of his colleagues abstained from voting on an extremely important amendment and there were as many votes in favour of the amendment as there were against the amendment. He had to take a position, that of his government, and vote to prevent making the handgun freeze completely useless as the Conservative Party and the NDP tried to do.

While there was grumbling about the amendments the government tabled in November, and there was pressure from all the opposition parties and civil society in general, I know that there was pressure coming from within the Liberal caucus to withdraw these amendments.

I would like the member to explain to us how this happened on the government side with the tabling and withdrawal of amendments on assault weapons, which were rather controversial.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be working with the member on the committee, and I would like to assure her that clause-by-clause is not always this bad and does not always take six months.

On the amendments we brought forward in the fall, it became clear, after much debate and much consultation on an ongoing basis, that they needed work, so they needed to be withdrawn and another approach taken. That is what we did. We responded to what people were saying. We listened and we took action so we could move this forward in a positive way.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the response to my previous question, the member stated that the government had consulted with many hunting clubs and gun aficionados. I believe those were the terms he used. There are six hunting clubs in my own riding. I personally am not a gun aficionado, but I did take my PAL and my RPAL before becoming elected, in order to understand this industry. What advice did the government hear from those consultations? It is apparently different from what I am hearing, so what did the gun clubs reveal to the government?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that, in the 42nd Parliament, I believe, the then-minister of public safety and emergency preparedness conducted quite extensive consultations right across the country. He spoke with gun clubs and many people involved in the gun community. I set up a meeting between him and members of my local gun club. In my riding, there is one of the largest outdoor ranges in the Lower Mainland, and I have actually been invited there to shoot on a couple of occasions and quite enjoyed it. I do not know how anybody can afford to do that, because it is pretty expensive. Regardless, I arranged a meeting between them and the former minister. This consultation resulted in the first iteration of Bill C-21, which did not survive that particular Parliament; it was a starting point, however, for this new version of Bill C-21.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always grateful to be here speaking in the House on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, but more importantly, for all the law-abiding firearms owners out there right across the country, particularly veterans, those in the military, those in law enforcement, sport shooters and even those in our parliamentary protective services.

I am disappointed to be once again speaking here under time allocation. When I spoke to the bill at second reading last year, it was under the same time allocation restrictions.

My speech will highlight three key factors: basing any dialogue or debate on the bill around data and facts, being open and transparent to Canadians and ultimately respecting our firearms owners. Underlying all of that, I will highlight the need for education to the general public and parliamentarians.

For the sake of transparency and to help educate all MPs and all Canadians listening tonight, let us review the history of how we got here at third reading via the data and facts.

First off, we have heard the terms, which have already been used a few times tonight, “assault weapon” and “military-style assault weapon”. I have been trying for three years to get an answer on that. The government's own commission report from Hill+Knowlton, which is on the Public Safety website, talks about the data that my fellow colleague spoke about: The vast majority of respondents, just shy of 200,000, do not support a handgun ban at all. In particular, the report talks about the need to define what is meant by “military-style assault rifle”. That is what the report says. When I asked the government to get that in writing, it said to look at this report, but the report says that the government better define it. Now here we are, umpteen years later, with no definition, and I have been trying with every tool at my disposal as a member of Parliament to get it.

As to the data on gun crime, over 85% of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. They are not done by law-abiding firearms owners. In fact, law-abiding firearms owners are three times less likely to commit any crime compared to the average Canadian. I find it very frustrating for us to be debating a bill that is targeting the wrong demographic. We should be focusing on criminals, not law-abiding firearms owners.

In any case, the bill was brought forward last June as a handgun freeze, which ultimately the government did through regulation last October. There were a couple of other components to it. It talked about making airsoft or paintball guns illegal, and it talked about bringing in enhanced red and yellow flag laws.

Unfortunately, once the bill was debated in the fall, it did not take long for the government to use time allocation again to get it through second reading and get it to committee. It was then studied at committee, where loads of time was taken up with testimony. Experts were brought in to refute and apparently support the government's legislation in some ways. However, in the end, funny enough, in all the testimony brought in around airsoft, we heard, “Whoa, why are you going after this community? They're not the problem.”

On the red and yellow flag laws, I think initially there was a somewhat unanimous belief that the government's intention was correct, but we heard from the vast majority of women's groups that, in fact, they were going to make things worse and make it more difficult for them to get a response from law enforcement for their own safety. Members do not have to take my word for it. Ms. Rathjen from PolySeSouvient said, “there is not one women's group that asked for this measure.” Also, Louise Riendeau, from Regroupement, said, “we think these measures are unnecessary and may even be counterproductive for victims.... [W]e recommend that clauses...which introduce these “red flag” measures, be [removed from the bill].”

When we got through that, it was getting pretty evident to the government that the whole purpose behind the bill and two of the elements did not even make sense. They likely were not going to survive, so what did we see happen next? At the last minute, the government table-dropped hundreds and hundreds of amendments, including the infamous G-4 and G-46, which went after the vast majority of hunters' and farmers' semi-automatic rifles and shotguns right across this country, which obviously created a great uproar.

Before I forget, I am splitting my time with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

I know the chair of the committee was speaking before me. We automatically challenged the whole idea of going after law-abiding hunters' shotguns and rifles. It was out of the scope of the bill and was not what we debated. Unfortunately, the chair ruled that it was within the scope. Then we challenged it, but the member from the NDP supported that it was in scope, which created a great uproar because we could not kill this the minute it was tabled. The Assembly of First Nations, many indigenous groups, the vast majority of hunters and farmers and even sports icons came out in opposition to these last-minute amendments, and the backlash was great.

Fortunately, the NDP saw the light. It changed tactics and ultimately the Liberals realized their mistake. However, when they realized they were in trouble, they started filibustering the committee. In fact, one Liberal member ate up two meetings alone talking about firearms 101 just to kill time as they tried to figure out how to back themselves out of the situation they put themselves in.

We hit Christmas recess and came back in the new year. The committee then had to wait over six weeks for the Minister of Public Safety to show up and testify at committee, which he finally did a few weeks ago, in late April. Lo and behold, what did we see happen less than a week later? On May 1, the minister came out and said he was going to come forth with another new amendment to Bill C-21 that he would introduce at the last minute. It was a new definition of prohibited firearms. This was just a day prior to the clause-by-clause review recommencing at committee.

Obviously, members of the committee were very concerned. If I had had a chance to ask the chair, I would have asked if he thought there was any filibustering going on. We ate up one two-hour meeting asking officials some legitimate questions to make sure this new definition of prohibited firearms was not going to impact hunters, sport shooters and law-abiding firearms owners right across this country. Remember, we already had the Prime Minister on the public record saying he was going after some of the hunting rifles from our law-abiding firearms owners.

I was sitting at the committee that day, and I was quite surprised by the NDP House leader when he immediately started accusing the Conservative members of the committee of filibustering. In fact, at one meeting, 45 minutes into it, the Conservative members had talked for less than a minute and the member from the NDP had spoken for more time than anybody else in that 45 minutes while he was complaining about somebody filibustering.

Unfortunately, we are here now at third reading. However, I have some good news to share with Canadians and with members here in the House. I got an amendment through, which basically passed unanimously at committee. It was an amendment to focus on providing the necessary resources and ability for a licensed firearm owner to temporarily store their firearms with another licensed individual or business while they are dealing with mental health issues. Once the handgun freeze was brought in, a lot of veterans, who are potentially dealing with PTSD and mental health issues, were afraid to do anything with their guns. They were not going to seek help because they did not want to lose them full time.

Some bad news is that the red flag laws were supported by the NDP. They did not get cut from the bill. Even now, the Prime Minister and the government have come out and said they are going to use the Canadian firearms advisory committee, which they stopped using over four years ago, to continue to target the rifles and shotguns of law-abiding hunters and farmers.

Let us just educate Canadians and focus support on the root causes of gun violence in this country: crime, drugs, gangs, illegal trafficking of firearms, no substantive bail reform and, most importantly, poverty. That is instead of going after our law-abiding firearms owners. I will be voting against Bill C-21, a basically useless bill.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his amendment being passed. The committee worked very hard to do so. It was great to have him substituting in here and there on the committee. It was a good help.

He mentioned that there is a problem with the definition of what an assault-style firearm is. I would agree that it needs work. That is, in fact, the purpose of the firearms advisory committee. It will consult with sports shooters, hunters, indigenous people and people across the country, from all walks of life, who will help it to formalize a correct and good definition of what an assault-style firearm is. I certainly hope that he will contribute to that discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely I will contribute. In fact, I will give a little history lesson for the member and for everybody here.

Assault weapons have been banned in Canada since January 1, 1978. As somebody who has carried assault weapons in the theatre of war, I know there is not a single firearm out of the 1,500, now 2,000, firearms that have been prohibited through the May 1 OIC, and subsequently through an order in council and the firearms program, that I, as a military member, would have ever purchased, helped define or take on, with the exception of a couple of sniper rifles, which do not fit the definition that has been put forth.

I will correct the member. The terms “military-style assault firearm” and “assault firearm” are not in the bill or anywhere in legislation that I am aware of, not a single spot. The definition that has been brought forward is a new definition of a prohibited firearm. The NPD member earlier even talked about how the government already had the capacity to redefine what a prohibited firearm is just through regulation. The minister has that power.

Ultimately, I am confident that with a future Conservative government, we will properly define firearms in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended his speech by stating that he will be voting against Bill C-21, because it is useless.

However, I did appreciate my colleague's efforts to adopt an amendment that he proposed at the last minute. When he sat down beside me to discuss this amendment and to ask me if I would be voting in favour of it, he saw that I had noted on my sheet that I would be voting against it.

He asked me why I wanted to vote against his amendment. He explained the intent behind it. He told me that people had confided in him that they had mental health issues they wanted to treat, but that they would not seek treatment because they were afraid their firearms would be confiscated immediately. The amendment he was presenting would allow them to entrust their firearms to someone else while waiting for help to address their mental health issues.

Once he explained that to me and made me aware of the issue, I agreed to vote in favour of the amendment. The same thing happened with all our colleagues and it was unanimous. We voted in favour of his amendment that, I believe, will help many people. I think it is a shame to hear him say that the bill will not serve any purpose. I understand that he would have liked us to do more about firearms trafficking, to do more in other areas, but I would still like to hear him say that there is at least one good thing in this bill and that he directly contributed to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, look, I will not argue. My amendment is a very good amendment, and I do appreciate the support we got. In fact, as I said in my speech, the NDP amendment to remove the airsoft portion was a good amendment too. However, the best amendment would have been to get rid of the handgun freeze in the first place. Then I would not have needed my amendment, because that is what created the problem.

The demographic that is three times less likely to commit a crime in Canada, the restricted firearms owners, is being penalized and targeted by the Liberal government, which is not allowing them to legally use their firearms. That is why I needed the amendment. I have a constituent who was going through a situation, and he transferred, not temporarily stored, his handguns to another person. The guy works with the local law enforcement back in my riding, but now he is stuck. He sorted out his mental health issue or whatever the problem was, and he cannot get his own handguns back.

My point is that if that freeze had not come into place, I would not have needed to introduce my amendment. The fact that I introduced a necessary amendment to make the bill less worse does not make it a useful bill. It is still a useless bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is all the time we have for that one.

Just as a reminder, I will ask members to keep comments and questions as short as possible so everybody can participate in tonight's debate.

The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

I want to speak today in solidarity with all the honest, law-abiding people in Lévis—Lotbinière who legally own guns for reasons other than committing violent crimes.

My colleagues will no doubt understand that I have come here to defend honest hunters and shooters, farmers, and collectors who own guns passed down from one generation to another.

The absurd thing about the Liberal government is that their bills miss their targets most of the time—that is probably a bad pun—as does their budget, for that matter.

How will legalizing drugs prevent or reduce crime? That is utter nonsense. How can anyone believe that restricting the use of certain registered and legal weapons is going to reduce the same criminal activity that continues to rise because of bad Liberal decisions?

The solution to the ever-increasing crime is quite simple, and it is the same for everything else that has not worked in our country since 2015. We are headed straight for a cliff because the Liberals are in power and they are making bad decisions.

The goal of the new Liberal amendments to Bill C‑21 is not to protect us, but to score political points and instill a false sense of security in the population. The facts prove otherwise and nothing will change.

I would like to talk about academic and government stakeholders, such as Dr. Caillin Langmann, assistant clinical professor at McMaster University. He stated that available research has demonstrated that the proposed ban on handguns and semi-automatic weapons would not reduce the rates of homicide and mass homicide.

Someone who wants to inflict harm has the imagination and means to do so. What causes an individual to commit the irreparable quite often begins with the family violence that children witness. These children will become uncontrollable adults who abuse drugs that have become legal and who commit increasingly serious crimes.

The rehabilitation system for these individuals is not working and the Liberal Party encourages this scourge through bad policies and complacency. As proof, the Liberal Party's catch-and-release policies are not working. After eight years of Liberal governance, violent crimes have increased by 32% and gang-related homicides have doubled.

Rather than cracking down on the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is working to take hunting rifles away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples.

Let us be clear. The Liberals' new definition is the same as the old one. The commonly used hunting firearms targeted by the Liberals in the fall will likely be added to the ban by the new Liberal firearms advisory panel.

Let there be no mistake. There is nothing new in the amendments proposed by the Liberals. They have just wrapped the initial amendments up in a new package. Hunters, farmers and indigenous peoples are not naive, and neither are the Conservatives. The Conservatives do not support taking guns away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples. When the Liberals say that they are banning so-called assault-style firearms, they really mean that they are banning hunting rifles. The Prime Minister even admitted as much a few months ago.

No one believes that the government is going to reduce violent crime across the country by going after hunters and legitimate hunting rifles. That is part of the Liberal government's plan to distract Canadians from the real issues our country is facing and to divide them.

For eight years now, have the Liberals been aware that they are making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with legislation stemming from Bill C‑5?

Are the Liberals aware that they are making it easier for violent criminals to get bail with legislation stemming from Bill C‑75?

Are the Liberals aware that they are making life easier for violent criminals by not stopping the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border?

Conservatives support common-sense gun policies, policies that will stop dangerous criminals from getting guns. That is why a Conservative government will invest in policing and securing our borders rather than spending billions of dollars confiscating guns from farmers, hunters, indigenous people and law-abiding Canadians.

Let us not be fooled. The Liberals are the champions of wishful thinking. The Liberals are also the champions of empty gestures, empty words and wasting our hard-earned money.

Quality of life has gone down considerably in Canada in the past eight years in every area of daily life and not just because of the increasing crime rate, which, again, jumped by 32%. When we look at the facts, the current situation and the numbers, we see that this is no longer working. One just needs to look at the number of available jobs, the backlog in immigration cases, the applications for temporary foreign workers that are blocked and have caused businesses back home such as Olymel to shut down.

I am thinking about the Liberals' rejection of my Bill C‑215, which sought to promote life by allowing people with a serious disease such as cancer to be entitled to 52 weeks of employment insurance to get back on their feet. I am thinking about all these young people to whom the Liberal Party is offering addiction to dangerous substances as a life work; as we all know, using hard drugs brings more problems. That is obvious and it only makes sense to acknowledge it.

I have a hard time seeing how Bill C‑21 will achieve the Liberal Party's murky goal of lowering the crime rate and making our streets safer.

In closing, in Lévis—Lotbinière, the majority of us are responsible, law-abiding people. More than ever, we need a return to a Conservative government to restore order in our country and in our politics, and to put money back in our pockets.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, during his speech, kept referring to the Liberal government attacking law-abiding hunters and law-abiding farmers who are trying to get rid of pest animals on their farms. Could the member please tell me which hunting rifle currently used by law-abiding hunters would be banned if this bill were passed?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, simply introducing this bill in the House, going after honest Canadians instead of going after criminals and those who bring illegal guns into Canada, shows how much the Liberals have chosen to politicize an issue tied to safety, one on which we could have worked together, just for political gains because they are truly afraid of losing the next election.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised. I have been following this debate for two days, and yesterday I heard the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord say that the Conservative Party was the only party standing up for hunters. I heard that many times.

It is clear, however, that the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has proven herself to be doing just that. No hunting weapons will be affected by Bill C-21.

As public policy-makers, I think we have a duty to tell our constituents the truth. I would like to hear my colleague tell the truth once and for all about the fact that hunters will not be affected by Bill C‑21. If he is honest, I think he has to say that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that an inordinate amount of time, nearly 14 months, has been spent on an issue that could have been tackled from a different angle in order to make Canada safer. The biggest part of the problem is the illegal guns that are coming across our borders and being bought by criminals and street gangs, who use them to commit violent crimes.

I would like my friend to understand that the Bloc Québécois is currently defending criminals rather than honest citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, hopefully the third time is a charm. I will ask my hon. colleague a third time: Can he stand in this place to name one rifle or shotgun that would be prohibited by Bill C-21? If he cannot, will he publicly state and acknowledge that this bill does not, in fact, go after farmers, hunters and indigenous communities and the models they are currently using?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleague can recognize the great collusion of the NDP and the Liberal Party in proposing policies that undermine public safety in Canada.

At present, we are working on a bill that may not remain on the books. The government is not really tackling the issue of illegal weapons that cross the U.S. border into Canada and are purchased by street gangs that commit serious crimes.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious. I may not have followed everything, but I do not believe that I heard the answer to an important question. What type of firearm used by hunters is banned by this bill?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my esteemed colleague, who is a minister, to assure the hunting community that the advisory committee to be created and appointed by the Liberals will protect hunters' interests.

To ask the question is to answer it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. colleague that at this hour, my French is not up to putting this question.

We have had discussions of the red-flag laws in this place on Bill C-21. I have read the Mass Casualty Commission report and find it deeply disturbing that, over a period of over a decade and a half, reports were made to the police that the man who ultimately killed 22 Nova Scotians had guns, and over the course of 15 years, reports were made to the police that he was violent and had done damage to his intimate partner. No action was taken in any of those cases.

I would like to ask the member if he considers that it is worth it to bring in a law that could have saved 22 lives in Nova Scotia if it had been in place before the events of April 2020.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is the most intelligent question I have been asked this evening.

Of course, if a person who has been granted the right to own a firearm is negligent, engages in domestic violence or is found to be suffering from mental illness, then it would be appropriate for that person to lose that right. A red-flag measure could be considered in such cases.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Outremont.

I am pleased today to speak to this legislation, Bill C-21, which speaks to the complexities of responding effectively to the escalating gun violence we are seeing in this country. There is surely no easy solution.

In Canada, we continue to justifiably pride ourselves on being a place of peace, but there are fissures in that feeling of security. The debate on Bill C-21, in particular the now infamous amendments, is no exception. From what I have heard to date, whether from constituents at home in the Yukon or from any member of the House speaking to this subject, we all agree that more needs to be done to keep our communities safer, even as each party, perhaps each member of the House, may harbour different ideas as to how best to achieve the peace we are all seeking.

Acts of violence have increased again in recent years. Despite the rhetoric of easy blame, there are likely multiple reasons for this increase. Organized crime, intimate partner violence, gang violence and random acts of violence are all contributors. From the horrific mass casualty event in Nova Scotia in early 2020, to the recent tragic stabbing of a 17-year-old in Vancouver, to the shooting of Sgt. Eric Mueller hardly a stone’s throw from the House just last week, we cannot ignore the rise in violent crime.

Enter Bill C-21. When this bill was initially introduced, many of my constituents reached out to express concerns about some of the provisions. They were from both vigilant and law-abiding firearms owners and those without their own firearms who were concerned about the further pressure on an already tightly regulated activity. Thus began my own journey with this bill and its various iterations.

When consulting with Yukoners, I found support for some of the provisions of the bill, such as bolstered law enforcement to address illegal sales and smuggling, stiffer penalties for transgressions, commitments to invest in early diversion program, and measures such as the red-flag and yellow-flag laws to make it easier for early intervention where risk was apparent. These all remain notable and worthy aspects of Bill C-21.

However, I must highlight, before we address the amendments and their revisions, concerns remain from handgun owners. Some of them are collectors, and others use handguns on the trapline or when they are travelling in remote areas. In skilled hands, handguns provide protection against potential predators in the wilderness and are far less cumbersome than a rifle.

There were also concerns about the ban on airsoft rifles, the limitations to be set restricting the pathways to elite sports shooting and the ability of indigenous peoples to access guns to pursue their livelihoods, rights recognized in the Constitution Act of 1982.

I have been assured that pathways to sports shooting will be addressed in regulations, but the uncertainty of who will be included remains disconcerting for many. It is now no secret that, when the substantial G-4 amendments were introduced in committee, they arrived in short notice and were welcomed by few. The amendments, in addition, were confusing to interpret, and arrived without substantial prior consultation with indigenous peoples, hunters, sport shooters, or for that matter, rural MPs.

I would not dwell on the angst that these original amendments aroused in my riding, as well as in other areas of the country. The lack of clarity confused and angered many. Law-abiding Canadians, indigenous communities with recognized rights and others were uncertain whether certain rights would be upheld or indeed, if and how they were going to be fairly compensated for firearms that would need to be handed over. Some collector pieces, whether handguns or rifles, are worth hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars. Regardless of prices, some of these pieces have heritage or sentimental value that cannot be matched by undefined promises of compensation. In short, it is no wonder that many reasonable Yukoners were upset.

In speaking for Yukoners, as well as for other potentially affected people around the country, including first nations and other indigenous communities, I was pleased to see how much improvement to these amendments we were able to influence and achieve. Ultimately, the controversial amendments were withdrawn with ensuing consultations around the country, including in the Yukon, leading to the new amendments currently being considered in this debate.

The Minister of Public Safety came to the Yukon to meet with hunters, outfitters and first nations, and his efforts were widely appreciate. The now revised amendments have, likewise, been recognized as a positive step forward from those initially proposed. No longer is there a massive and confusing list of banned guns. Firearm models presently on the market are to be exempt from the assault weapon definition, and current owners now have some room to breathe.

A new advisory committee, which would include hunting and sport shooting experts, indigenous peoples and gun control advocates, would be launched to determine classifications on firearms newly on the market. The onus on classification would now shift from the owner to the manufacturer. Few would argue that we need urgent action to address ghost guns and their vast potential to make gun crime easier to commit and harder to detect.

I am encouraged by the proposed makeup of this advisory committee, and I hope that this committee will help bring together individuals with different perspectives to chart a course forward to make our communities safer, something that we need to do much more of to achieve effective and lasting solutions to gun violence.

From the opportunities I have had to sit at the public safety committee from time to time and hear testimony from both gun control advocacy groups, such as PolySeSouvient, as well as from hunters and sport shooters, all agree that there is more we must do to keep our communities safe and there is space for these different perspectives to come together to find a way forward. Speaking of the public safety committee, I would like to thank the chair and all members of this committee. They have worked long hours of late to deliberate on the revised amendments on behalf of Canadians.

I appeal to all parties to not get bogged down in what has become an unnecessarily polarizing debate: urban vs. rural; progressives against Conservatives. On this issue and, may I say, on many others, we all want the same outcome.

Thus, I believe the proposed advisory committee could be a means to objectively, through expert and balanced eyes, take this assessment out of the hands of the politicians who have allowed it to become politicized through the oversimplification of the debates.

The statistics and quotes colleagues on both sides of the aisle are applying can also oversimplify the situation. While the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports Bill C-21, particularly the intensified border controls and penalties, and have recognized that a national handgun ban is preferable to a provincial or municipal approach, it also, in the same statement, acknowledges that banning legally owned handguns will have a limited impact on one of the root causes of handgun-related crime, the illegal handguns obtained through the United States.

We have seen an increase over the past few years in firearm-related homicides. For example, Statistics Canada reported an increase in firearm-related homicides by 91% between 2013 and 2020. One in three homicides in Canada are firearms-related, and about half of these are committed with handguns, yet 79% of solved homicides involving firearms have been committed by a perpetrator who did not hold a valid firearms license.

In a more local level, and a wrenching example, in October of 2021, there was a double homicide and an additional individual injured in a shooting in Faro, Yukon, using an illegally obtained firearm. Statistics alone, though, risk overlooking the thousands of Canadians whose lives have been touched by firearm-related crimes. Lives lost needlessly will never be returned, and the families changed will never be the same.

Setting Bill C-21 aside, we are continuing to work on making our communities safer. It is important to note that there is much more to this government’s response to gun violence than what is contained within the bill. Control of trafficking at the borders is essential. Our government has invested $312 million over the last few years to enhance the capacity of the RCMP and CBSA to halt the flow of illegal guns through our borders. We need to do more to clamp down on straw sales and the illegal movement of firearms.

Earlier this year, I was honoured to be on hand when the City of Whitehorse received almost a million dollars through our building safer communities fund. This fund strives to divert at-risk youth away from gun and gang violence early and prevent devastating situations from arising.

Just last week, the Minister of Public Safety announced almost $390 million for the provinces and territories to build upon the government’s take action against gun and gang violence initiative. As a Canadian, as a parent, and as a public health physician, I abhor gun violence. I am distressed by how we have seen a rise in gun violence in Canada. This is not the Canada we want. We are obliged to do better to address gun violence. We need to learn from our mistakes and move on.

Bill C-21’s journey, including the amendments, has been a quest for an urgent solution to address gun violence. It arguably did not meet all the requirements for a collaborative, consultative approach that would bring people of different perspectives together to chart a course forward. However, with these new amendments, including the formation of a new advisory committee, we have the potential to set the stage for a collaborative and expert-driven approach that will not only help to build a safer Canada but also, in so doing, help rebuild the trust that has been lost.

As we carry on with our work to address all aspects of gun violence, I will continue to play my part to ensure that the voice of the Yukon is heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech, my colleague admitted that we need to work harder for gun control, particularly to crack down on illegal firearms trafficking. I completely agree with him.

The legislative summary we received from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on Bill C-21 had many subheadings on various subjects. It said that Bill C-21 does more to crack down on illegal firearms trafficking, but the bill contains only one measure in that regard.

In Bill C-21, we see that the government wants to crack down on illegal firearms trafficking by increasing the maximum sentences for those convicted of such a crime. We are wondering how effective that measure will be, because we know that criminal groups usually use people with no criminal records to bring in firearms. Then, since they do not have a criminal record, they are given shorter sentences.

Right now, the maximum sentence is 10 years, but that is a penalty very rarely handed down. Will it really change anything to increase that maximum sentence to 14 years?

I do not think so, and I think my colleague might agree with me.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for her work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I can tell her that there are many targeted measures at the border. For example, $300 million is being invested to enhance the intelligence and investigative capacity of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency to stop the flow of illegal weapons across the border. We have brought in many measures that we hope will address this complex problem.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon began his speech referencing the mass casualty report, and I just recently had an exchange on it with another member.

The mass casualty report on the events of April 18 and 19, 2020, in Nova Scotia is really a ground truthing of why we need to change our laws. The concepts of gender-based violence, violence against intimate partners and coercive control should permeate the ways in which we look at how we prevent the use of any weapon in ways that kill one person, such as an intimate partner, or cause a mass casualty. The mass casualty report is a deep report of over 3,000 pages of solid evidence that 22 people in Nova Scotia did not need to die.

They died because, despite various reports over many years of the predilection of a rural Nova Scotian to collect illegal guns and to have an illegal police car, which looked just like a real police car, and reports that he was violent toward his partner, over and over again, for more than a decade and a half, the police did nothing.

I wonder if the hon. member for Yukon could reflect on whether he sees Bill C-21 as making a difference in a circumstance such as this in the lives of rural Canadians.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would say a few things. One is that the mass casualty report, to its credit, hugely emphasized prevention and how much more we need to do in prevention. As well, as the member described, opportunities for early intervention are really part of prevention. The other thing is that, as I pointed out earlier in my speech, the red-flag and yellow-flag laws would have that capacity to help address these situations for preventative early intervention.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we are here at this late hour to debate Bill C-21 and, more broadly, gun control in Canada.

There is no doubt that if this bill passes, it will be the most significant reform of our gun control laws in over a generation. I would like to take a few moments now to explain why the fight against gun violence and in favour of stricter gun control is so important to me. It was in my community of Outremont, at École Polytechnique, that we experienced an unthinkable tragedy over 33 years ago.

I often think of that evening. I still vividly remember that we were waiting for my father to arrive for dinner. I was waiting for my father at the window beside the door. We did not know why he had not yet returned from his job at the university. I remember seeing my father return with a sombre look on his face. I remember him explaining what he saw at Polytechnique the evening of December 6, 1989. I was nine years old. I asked him why 14 women had been struck down. It was simply unfathomable for the young girl that I was.

I remember that day on December 6, 1989, not just with deep sadness but also with renewed determination. The survivors of that tragedy, those courageous and resilient women, transformed their pain into action. I am thinking mainly of Nathalie Provost, who was shot and has dedicated her life since then to fighting for better control of firearms in Canada. I want to thank her and the entire PolyRemembers team for their relentless fight, even when they have to face the constant and often shocking attacks of the gun lobby.

Canada should never again have to witness such a tragedy. We have a collective responsibility to make sure firearms do not end up in the wrong hands. We must act with courage and determination, just like the Polytechnique survivors. That is one of the reasons I made gun control one of my top priorities in my political career.

Another important motivation for me in my fight for stronger gun control is based on the numbers. The numbers do not lie. They are not emotional.

Let me start with my friends and neighbours to the south. There was a time when gun ownership was not so widespread in the United States and when gun control policies still garnered some consensus in America, and I am not talking about ancient times. In 1993, the U.S. Congress passed legislation to establish background checks and waiting periods. In 1994, the federal assault weapons ban came into force, prohibiting the manufacture of many types of semi-automatic firearms for civilian use. This law, which also banned large-capacity magazines, had tangible results. During the decade it was in effect, the number of mass shootings in the United States fell by 37%, and the number of people dying from mass shootings fell by 43%.

Unfortunately, this law was allowed to expire in 2004, followed by a heartbreaking surge in mass shootings. Between 2004 and 2014, mass shootings in the U.S. rose by an alarming 183%, nearly 200%. Mass shootings are now a daily occurrence in the United States. In fact, last year, there were nearly two mass shootings, on average, every single day in the United States. Streets, schools and places of worship are the backdrops for these tragedies. Fire drills have been replaced by gun drills in elementary schools across the United States. Is that what we want for Canada? I certainly do not.

Today, America has had over 390 million firearms sold to private individuals, outnumbering the U.S. population in its entirety. This represents a 63% increase in the last two decades alone. Policies matter. The impact of looser gun laws and unbridled gun culture is as clear as it is devastating.

In Canada, although we, thankfully, have more restrictive gun laws and fewer shootings, since 2013, we have seen an alarming increase in firearm-related crimes. The biggest spike actually occurred between 2013 and 2015, when Statistics Canada reported a 30% increase in the firearm-related crime rate. Since then, it has, unfortunately, continued to rise, albeit much more slowly. As is often noted in this debate on Bill C-21, many of the weapons used in these crimes are illegally imported from the United States into Canada, demonstrating again how the prevalent American gun culture and looser gun laws can cross borders and impact us right here at home.

We need to confront the reality of these numbers, because they are not just statistics. They tell a story. We must continue to enhance the RCMP and CBSA’s capacity to detect and disrupt gun smuggling. That is why our government has once again invested in the initiative to take action against guns and gangs, that is why we must continue to crack down on gun trafficking and that is why Bill C-21 would increase maximum sentences for firearm smuggling.

Listening to some of the arguments from my Conservative colleagues, one could be led to believe that we, here in Canada, have some kind of U.S.-style right to bear arms. That is simply not the case. There is no such right in our country. There is no such provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act and there is no such provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or anywhere else. This issue was adjudicated and resolved about 30 years ago at the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. Hasselwander, where Justice Cory, writing for the majority on the court, stated, “Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms.” He went on to explain that most Canadians put more value in the peace of mind and sense of security that comes with prohibiting the proliferation of dangerous weapons. I could not agree more.

The gun lobby and the Conservatives who choose to be the mouthpieces for the gun lobby have been consistently misleading Canadians, and this needs to stop. Instead of promoting disinformation or importing American gun culture or America’s laws and politics, we should be focusing on keeping our Canadian communities safe and keeping handguns and assault weapons away from our kids, away from our schools and away from our streets.

I do want to be clear, though, that there is a time and place for some of these weapons. Some belong on the battlefield. Semi-automatic assault weapons should be in the hands of those brave Ukrainians fighting for their democracy. Hunting rifles belong in the hands of hunters who safely practise their sport. We respect the long-standing tradition of hunting in Canada, and nothing in Bill C-21 would get in the way of that, but no one needs an AR-15 or a 10-round magazine to hunt a duck or an elk. Those who do should probably find another sport.

I could go on at length about what I think about Bill C-21, but I would like to quote what Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control has said:

No law is ever perfect but Bill C-21 is a game changer for Canada and should be implemented as soon as possible. The law responds to most of the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission and the demands of the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC), which, with more than 200 supporting organizations, has fought for stronger firearm laws for more than thirty years.

In just the past 24 hours in Montreal, our community has had two incidents of gun violence, in other words two murders. That is something we do not want to get used to in Montreal, in Quebec or in Canada. We cannot and will not tolerate this.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the member opposite, although this is coming from the party that seems to detest American-style politics. All the member did was talk about what is going on in the United States. I do not remember once, not ever, anybody on this side of the House saying that it is a right to own a firearm. Conservatives have always said it is a privilege, and we have always said that privilege comes with responsibilities. We have never said it is a right.

I also listened to this debate and heard talk about misinformation and disinformation. That is a massive piece of it. Conservatives had to sit here and listen to that. We had to listen to what is going on in the United States. What does that have to do with what is going on in Canada? If the member wants to talk about that, she could talk about Chicago. It is a gun-free zone and it has double-digit homicides every single weekend. We can talk about Mexico if we want. It has massive gun control. Who has all the guns? It is the cartels, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

When will the member get serious about what is going on in this country, strengthen our border and reduce the number of guns that are smuggled?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my Conservative colleague opposite has very clearly stated that gun ownership is not a right in this country, but a privilege.

What we have done in Bill C-21 is increase sentencing for violent crimes that use handguns. What we have done in Bill C-21 is reinforce our borders with additional funding in order to ensure that our security personnel can intercept gun traffickers and we can curb gun smuggling from the United States into Canada.

I would like to know why the Conservatives, if they are serious about tackling gun smuggling, are voting against Bill C-21.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned the tragic massacre at École Polytechnique, which is in her riding. She mentioned the work of PolyRemembers and that of Nathalie Provost, who was shot that day.

I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary is aware that, with Bill C‑21, her government is breaking the promise that it made to PolyRemembers. PolyRemembers asked the government to ban assault weapons. With the passage of Bill C‑21, 482 models of assault-style weapons will remain on the market in Canada. That includes the WK180‑C, a semi-automatic weapon that works exactly the same way as the AR‑15, which has already been banned.

I do not know whether my colleague is aware that, since 2015, all her government has done is disappoint PolyRemembers.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for the work that she did on the committee responsible for this bill. The committee worked hard so that the House could debate Bill C‑21.

As she is well aware, I work very closely with PolyRemembers. I know that it is important to PolyRemembers that we provide a definition of assault weapons. What we are doing in Bill C‑21 is a first step in that direction. There will be a definition in the bill. We also set up an advisory committee to analyze the 482 models of assault weapons that my colleague referred to.

I would also like to say that our work is not finished. It has only just begun.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about other sport shooting disciplines. She may be aware that her Liberal colleague from the riding of Kings—Hants gave a very passionate defence at committee for including organizations like the International Practical Shooting Confederation. Other countries that have handgun bans have allowed members to train for this. Even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has asked for law-abiding handgun owners to be able to practise their sport.

Why have the Liberals been so steadfastly against this when other countries have set examples? The members of her own caucus are arguing for it, as is the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I have been deeply disappointed in the position the NDP, the supposed progressive party, has taken on gun control in this country.

I understand that my colleague would like to have seen an exception for IPSC, which is a sport shooters association. The reality is that the president of IPSC indicated that he would very much welcome an exception because it would allow his members to essentially purchase handguns despite the handgun freeze in effect in this country, thereby creating a huge loophole in the bill that is before us. I am glad that—

[The Acting Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. chief opposition whip.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Beauce.

The Liberals are on a mission to ban hunting rifles in Canada. Tonight, we are debating Bill C-21, legislation that is designed to ban firearms used by law-abiding hunters and farmers. When discussing this bill on TV, the Prime Minister said, “we're going to have to take [guns] away from people who were using them to hunt.”

That is why, at the public safety committee, the Liberals tried to slip in amendments that would have banned several common hunting rifles, including the SKS, the Ruger No. 1, the Mossberg 702 Plinkster tactical 22, the Westley Richards Model 1897 and many slow-to-fire hunting firearms designed to shoot birds or skeet.

After public backlash from rural communities across the country, and in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservatives, the Minister of Public Safety retreated in defeat. However, the Prime Minister is still hunting for a way to take away legal firearms from law-abiding Canadians. Since his plan A failed, he has moved to plan B.

He is now setting up an advisory committee to make further recommendations on gun control, and he has given himself the power to ban firearms by an order in council. Members can be sure that he will appoint activists to the advisory committee who will tell him what he wants to hear. He will then hide behind their advice and unilaterally ban hunting rifles without any further debate or votes in this House of Commons. Conservatives oppose giving the Prime Minister this power; we do not trust him to leave law-abiding firearms owners alone. After all, he already admitted his true agenda, which is to take away their hunting rifles.

The NDP members are putting their faith in the Liberal Prime Minister, as they always do. They will vote in favour of this secretive, undemocratic process, wherein the Prime Minister can once again attack rural Canada. The NDP once championed the rural way of life, but it has become a party that takes its marching orders from special interest groups and, frankly, woke, big city mayors. The NDP has forgotten about the rich hunting tradition in rural communities, a tradition that is as old as the land itself. Traditions have been passed down from generation to generation. Many families rely on wild game to fill their freezers and to feed their families. For them, hunting is a way of life.

When I was young, my family lived on beautiful Vancouver Island. I fondly remember friends and family celebrating their successful hunts. Recently, I travelled back to the island, where I spoke with a man named Frank. He is a small business owner struggling to make ends meet under crippling inflation, which is at a 40-year high. Given the high cost of food, driven up by the carbon tax, Frank cannot afford to buy meat at his local grocery store. Hunting with his legally owned firearm allows him to provide meat for his growing family of five. Frank is a law-abiding, hard-working and proud Canadian whose way of life is under threat from Bill C-21.

Frank is not alone. His story is like the stories of many others on Vancouver Island and in every region of the country. The rural NDP members have completely abandoned people like Frank. The voting record will show that NDP members from rural British Columbia have turned their backs on their own constituents.

This includes the member for Courtenay—Alberni, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay and the member for North Island—Powell River. These NDP members do not have the backs of their constituents when they are thousands of miles away from home in the House of Commons.

In particular, I am disappointed with the whip of the NDP, the member for North Island—Powell River. She had the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford removed from the public safety committee in the middle of its consideration of the bill. She silenced him because he raised concerns about the bill. She replaced him with an urban, anti-hunting member, the NDP House leader, for fear that they might upset their big city base.

She should know that the data and evidence are clear in that licensed firearm owners are far less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen. That is why the Liberal-NDP coalition should leave law-abiding firearms owners alone and target the real perpetrators of gun crime.

What I find particularly egregious is that the Liberal-NDP coalition did the opposite by eliminating mandatory prison time for serious gun crimes, including robbery or extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in commission of a crime and reckless discharge of a firearm. It is letting drive-by shooters and gun runners back into our communities sooner while targeting law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.

It also broke the bail system by legislating a catch-and-release program that has led to a 32% increase in violent crimes. As a result, B.C. cities, including my home of Surrey, are facing an onslaught of violent crime. University Magazine identified Surrey as having the highest crime rate in Canada. The decent, hard-working families who choose to live and work in Surrey just want a safe community to raise their families and live in peace. Under the soft-on-crime Liberal government, they are forced to live in a community where criminals are emboldened. This approach is not working in Surrey on anywhere in British Columbia.

We all remember the tragic murder of Constable Shaelyn Yang; while on duty, she was stabbed to death by a man who had previously been arrested for assault. He was released on condition that he would appear in court, which is something that, surprisingly, he failed to do. A warrant was issued for his rearrest, but when found living in a tent in Burnaby Park, he took the life of Constable Yang by stabbing her to death. Sadly, she is just one of 10 police officers killed in the line of duty this year.

In another case, a tourist was stabbed multiple times in the back while waiting in line at a Tim Hortons in Vancouver. His assailant was the subject of a Canada-wide warrant for failing to follow conditions of his release. In Vancouver, 40 offenders accounted for 6,000 arrests in one year. That is an average of 150 arrests each.

Unfortunately, the breakdown of public safety extends far beyond B.C. We all watched with horror last summer after the mass killing on James Smith Cree Nation happened in Saskatchewan. The perpetrator had previously been charged with over 120 crimes, but that did not prevent him from taking 10 indigenous lives.

Following that senseless tragedy, the Leader of the Opposition stood in this House, pleading for change. He said, “The James Smith Cree Nation was not only the victim of a violent criminal, but also the victim of a broken criminal justice system.” He went on to say:

A system that allows a violent criminal to reoffend over and over again with impunity does not deserve to be called a justice system. Leaving victims vulnerable to repeat attacks by a violent felon is not criminal justice. It is criminal negligence.

As Conservatives, we believe that someone who makes one mistake should be given every opportunity to build a productive life for themselves. However, the justice system cannot allow dangerous, violent repeat offenders to terrorize our streets. I will vote against Bill C-21, because it would do nothing to take illegal guns off our streets.

Canada needs a Conservative government that will target gun smuggling and end easy access to bail for repeat violent offenders. Only Conservatives will bring home common sense to public safety that targets criminals, not law-abiding Canadians. We will be a government that respects and protects law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters. Why will we do this? We will do it because it is their home, my home and our home. We will use common sense to bring it home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I think my Conservative Party colleagues are taking intellectual shortcuts.

They say that Bill C‑21 is the biggest ban on hunting rifles in Canadian history. They know full well that that is not true. They say that once Bill C‑21, which does not affect hunting rifles, is passed, the minister is obviously going to issue an order in council banning hunting rifles. According to the Conservatives, this means that the government is going after hunters. That is not at all what is happening.

I want to know how my colleague can see into the future.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I frankly resent the personal remarks of that member. I am a lawyer by background, and honour, ethics and integrity are important to me, as they are to the rest of my Conservative colleagues. I am not misinforming this House, and I am not stating falsehoods.

I am telling the truth about what Bill C-21 would do and what this advisory committee would probably do. One just needs to look at the earlier announcements, which ban such rifles as the Winchester model 100, Winchester 1910, Sauer 303, Ruger Deerfield Carbine and Remington 740. I could go on. Clearly they want to do by order in council what they did not want to do openly in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was, frankly speaking, an embarrassing speech.

First of all, the firearms advisory committee is a body that already exists. It is separate and apart from Bill C-21. Furthermore, the hon. colleague knows that the power to reclassify firearms already exists under the Criminal Code.

I am willing to bet that if I challenge that member to name one rifle or shotgun that is going to be prohibited by Bill C-21, she would be unable to do so. I am going to sit down now and give her the opportunity to do just that.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the whole point of a committee that allows the Prime Minister the power to make further regulations, without coming back and debating them through legislation in this House, is what we are talking about.

The Liberals have already indicated the types of firearms that they were targeting before. I just listed several of them. There is no indication that they will not target them again. They have just given themselves an easier pathway to do it, by order in council.

Order in council is done at the cabinet table or in the Prime Minister's Office. There is no need to come back to this House for consultation.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the hon. member's speech, she actually said that the penalties would decrease for gun runners. She referred to them as traffickers or smugglers. However, it was clear in the proposed legislation that the maximum penalty would be extended from 10 years to 14 years.

Could the hon. member clarify that point?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I love this question, because I am a lawyer, and I used to be the parliamentary secretary for justice. I know the difference between a minimum mandatory sentence and a maximum mandatory sentence. Maximum mandatory sentences are virtually meaningless, other than meaning that justice could not go further.

The whole point here is that the Liberals have taken a series of dangerous, violent crimes, with firearms, and lessened the penalties for them. It is clear. It is on the record. If the member was listening, I listed them in my speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the speech that the opposition whip gave, which articulated some of the really important context that highlights some of the debate.

It is clear that the Liberals, in the work they did in committee, wanted to go further. In fact, there were members of the committee who said that. This legislation gives them the authority to go further with a secretive process that would likely, in the Prime Minister's own words, target law-abiding firearms owners.

My question for the opposition whip is this: Is that secretive process the best way to increase public safety, or would it actually be putting the real criminals behind bars?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the answer to that is no.

Orders in council are done for the convenience of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. They are not done to have a transparent or open process. They are not done to subject what is being done or changed to debate and discussion.

When this bill was originally tabled, there was so much backlash that the Liberals had to pull it all back and find another way to do what they wanted to do. There was opposition from constituents, Canadians right across the country, from coast to coast to coast, and from the Conservatives. The current way is now less transparent than what we had before.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to measure up to my colleague. It is not easy to speak after the official opposition whip. She gave a wonderful speech and did a great job of illustrating the challenges we face.

Today, I am speaking to Bill C-21, this government's flawed gun bill. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the hard work my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul has done on this file, as well as the work put in by all of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Since the bill was introduced in the House, the Liberal Party has changed direction so often that it is difficult to keep up. The Liberals' inordinate attacks on the Canadian people have not gone unnoticed. The Liberals have shown their true colours to Canadians. Instead of cracking down on illegal guns and gang members, this government has introduced legislation targeting hunters, farmers and indigenous communities.

As usual, the Liberal government is completely out of touch with rural Canada, widening the all-too-real divide in our country. No one believes that going after hunters will reduce violent crime across the country. This is part of the Liberal plan to divide Canadians.

As Conservatives, we support common-sense gun policies that prevent guns from falling into the hands of dangerous criminals. The most important thing we can do is to crack down on smugglers at the borders and prevent illegal weapons from getting into Canada and falling into the hands of criminals and gang members.

I have had the opportunity to talk with many citizens in my riding about this bill. I talked to Mr. Vachon from Saint‑Georges, who served in the army for 14 years and who is very worried about the impact this bill will have on him and his ability to hunt and sport shoot. He is an advocate for the safe use of firearms and understands very well that those who commit crimes with illegal firearms will not be concerned at all about this bill. The only people who are worried about it are law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.

I also talked to Mr. Deschênes from Sainte‑Marie, who is extremely concerned about the impact this bill will have on shooting clubs in the region. They may have to close their doors in the future. He is a federal agent and needs to regularly train at these shooting ranges to keep up his skills and keep himself safe. He emphasized the importance of these shooting ranges for public safety because many police services use them to perfect their skills and maintain their accreditation, and they also educate other Canadians about gun safety.

Finally, Ms. Turcotte from Beauceville contacted my office just last week to express her dissatisfaction with amendments G‑4 and G‑46. These amendments were completely inappropriate and were subsequently withdrawn. However, hunters still worry about what the Liberal government will do next. How far is it prepared to go? Will it amend the same bill once it comes into force, introduce those amendments and shut down debate again?

In my riding, countless farmers also contacted me for fear that they would no longer be able to protect their livestock, which is their livelihood. The problem with this government is that it has a strange way of sending messages. It claims to have discussed this bill with stakeholders, but when the text of the bill and the amendments were published, many groups, such as hunters, indigenous groups and professional sport shooters were taken completely by surprise.

A member of the Alberta Mounted Shooters Association said that they are a very safety-conscious group. She added that before they can become mounted shooters, they must complete training, testing and background checks to obtain their restricted gun licences. They want more Canadians to practice their sport. They want to grow and develop skilled target shooters and equestrians. They also want the ability to continue the legacy for our youth and produce more world champions.

At the rate this bill is going, I do not know if there will be any sport shooters left when this is all over. New athletes will have so many regulatory hurdles to overcome that any shooting discipline outside of the Olympics will be eradicated. Even Canadian Olympians will be forced to spend countless hours obtaining the necessary licences to travel with their sporting equipment.

This lack of comprehensive consultation has not just affected hunters and sport shooters; it has also affected the most important segment of the Canadian population, indigenous communities. As Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake put it, the lack of thorough and comprehensive consultation with indigenous communities is demonstrated by the incoherence and inconsistency of the proposed legislation, the amendments and the lack of recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples.

This is further proof of the complete ignorance shown by this government and the Minister of Public Safety.

Let us talk about how the Prime Minister continues to fail Canadians when it comes to public safety. With bills like C-5, the government is making our country less safe. Bill C-5 removes mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. How backwards can this government be?

For people who are guilty of armed robbery or firearms trafficking or who recklessly discharge a weapon, it is easier to get away with it thanks to the Prime Minister's soft on crime approach. This government has made things twice as bad with Bill C‑75. The Prime Minister's bail policy has triggered a wave of violent crime in our country.

Our communities feel less safe, and the Liberal government is responsible for making the situation worse. A common-sense Conservative government will ensure that violent reoffenders stay behind bars while awaiting trial, and it will bring back the mandatory sentences for serious violent crimes that were cut by this government.

The bail reform measures that were announced this week are reactive and respond to weeks of news about the dramatic increase in violent crime in this country. Why does the government always have to play catch-up? It is incapable of getting ahead on anything. A Conservative government will ensure Canadians' safety and introduce bills that will truly keep Canadians safe.

Does the government realize that illegal guns are used in 99% of gun crimes? More than 85% of those guns are smuggled in from the United States. Why are they not allocating more resources at the borders to prevent these firearms from entering?

In my riding, there are two border crossings that do not even have CBSA officers. Truckers coming into Canada simply pick up the phone and call the nearest border service officer to open the gate and the shipments come into Canada without any screening. I am sure this may surprise some members of the House, but it shows just how low a priority border security is for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety.

In conclusion, I think everyone in this House wants to make Canada a safer place to live, but Bill C-21 was never the right way to go about it. This bill was flawed from the start, and the government has completely missed the mark.

I also think the NDP has a lot to do with this failure, as the New Democrats continue to support the government in this process. However, many of the NDP members are from rural ridings. I hope their constituents have been watching them all this time and will remember this failure. Conservatives will always be there to keep Canadians safe and to protect law-abiding gun owners, whether they are hunters, farmers, sport shooters or indigenous people.

We will always protect their right to own and use firearms safely and lawfully. We will ensure that violent criminals and smugglers are prosecuted, instead of our law-abiding neighbours and farmers.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member the same question that I have asked other members here tonight: Can the member opposite name one shotgun or rifle that is currently used by hunters and farmers in their regular hunting activities that this bill would actually ban?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, these guns used by hunters were in an initial amendment that was later withdrawn. What guarantee do we have that this government, which is known for breaking its promises, will not bring them back and submit them to the committee established and created by the government and whose members are appointed by the government?

I believe that the answer is obvious.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, since the beginning of this debate, the Conservatives have been saying that Bill C-21 will either ban hunting rifles or that it will allow the Prime Minister to ban hunting rifles.

It would be one or the other in the best of all possible worlds. The truth is, it is neither.

I would still like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the second part. If I understand the Conservatives' argument correctly, until Bill C-21 is passed, it is impossible to ban guns by order in council.

I would like him to explain how the government managed to ban guns by order in council before Bill C-21.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question.

I will send it back to her because I just told my colleague opposite that there is a committee in place that could later decide to take everything that was in the absurd amendment G‑4 and put it back in.

I do not know how my Bloc Québécois colleagues can trust the current government, but I for one cannot.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, for a party that touts contemporary messages to its constituents, I am surprised by the outdated messaging that this member has shared during his intervention in talking about the G-4 and G-46 amendments, which have been removed.

I would ask the member if he realizes that there are updated amendments regarding indigenous peoples' rights in Bill C-21. How does he plan to educate his constituents, whether they are indigenous or not, on section 35 and how that has been incorporated in Bill C-21?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that we are going around in circles with this question. Yes, targeted firearms could be used by members of indigenous peoples, hunters or farmers, especially in my region.

I understand that people are concerned, and they have questioned me many times about this issue in the past few weeks. We cannot blame them for being afraid that, in the end, the firearms that were included in a previous amendment and were removed could be put back in. What is to stop the current government from banning them again once the law is in effect?

I find it difficult to understand why my NDP colleagues always blindly support a government that has the impertinence to often change its mind. What is to stop it from changing its mind again?

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

Madam Speaker, I will do pick up where the last question was posed to the member, because I think it is an important question. I cannot help but notice that, whether they are a Liberal, a Bloc member a New Democrat or, at times, a member of the Green Party, members pose a very simple question asking the Conservative Party to justify what it is actually saying in the House. If we listen very closely, we will find that the Conservative Party does not have a legitimate answer to the question.

What the Conservatives do is skirt around the question, and as we witnessed with one member, but they are not the only member. They will put on that whole conspiracy theory mentality, saying that if this happens, then that will happen and that will happen, and something could happen. That is all they need to do, as it has been explained adequately for anyone to truly understand that there is nothing within the legislation that would be an attack on our hunters, our farmers or indigenous people and the rights they have. That is the reality, and that is why the Conservative Party is having a very difficult time answering some of those simple questions, such as naming one shotgun or rifle that would be banned through this legislation.

It is a very simple answer. The answer is zero, but the problem is that the speaking notes the Conservatives have been provided do not allow for them to say that. Why is that?

I had the opportunity to ask a question about the motivating factor for the Conservative Party on Bill C-21. My colleague gave the answer when he talked about the golden egg. This is one of those issues the Conservative Party loves, because the government and other opposition parties have an objective in passing Bill C-21, an objective that is very simple and straightforward. It is all about public safety. That is what I have consistently heard from the Bloc, the Green Party, the NDP and Liberals. That is the motivating factor.

What is the motivating factor for the Conservative Party? It has nothing to do with the safety of our communities. It has everything to do with the dollars over the years. If I could pose a question and knew I would get an actual answer, the question I would be asking is “How much money has the Conservative Party raised on the issue of guns?”

I have been involved in this debate since 1991, both at the provincial legislature and here in the House of Commons. The far right of the Conservative Party stems from the Reform Party, but they are not to be confused, because I think the current leader has even taken the Conservatives further to the right than Stockwell Day. What we see is that on this particular issue, we are talking about millions of dollars over the years. It has been a cash cow for the Conservative Party, and that is really what is driving it to take the position it has today.

The Conservatives are not going to trade that off, and that is why it does not matter how many questions they are asked or how they are challenged on what they are saying. They are not changing. We can look at social media.

The Conservative Party will tell anyone who wants to listen to them, but specifically to someone in their targeted groups of farmers, hunters or indigenous people, to watch out as the federal government, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP are after people's rifles and shotguns. They are going to take them away from people. That is the type of message it is trying to portray. No need to read between the lines. Conservatives are trying to get farmers to think that we are going to take what are often very important tools used on a farm. For many community members it is a way of life to go out and enjoy them as a sport or for hunting purposes. Those are all legitimate.

This is not an attack on law-abiding hunters but, listening to the speeches being given by the other side, one would think that this is an assault on farmers, hunters and indigenous people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To get a sense of why, we do not have to look far. There was an article that I believe appeared in the Free Press. It was written by Blake Brown with a headline of “MCC report calls for stricter gun laws”. It reads:

The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead makes several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada’s gun laws.

Before I go on we need to recognize that the Conservatives can take shots at the Liberals, Bloc, NDP and Greens, but they cannot easily push aside this particular commission. The makeup of the commission itself is significant because the commission is a non-partisan body. The chair of the commission, Michael MacDonald, is a retired Nova Scotia chief justice. The other commissioners are Leanne J. Fitch, who served for seven years as the chief of police for the Fredericton Police Force, and Dr. Kim Stanton, a lawyer and legal scholar. The headline of “MCC report calls for stricter gun laws” says it all.

I highlighted another section because when thinking about it, we should also think of this specific issue. It reads:

The commission also determined that the safety of women survivors of intimate-partner violence is "put at risk by the presence of firearms and ammunition in the household."

I have heard members from the Conservative Party in essence say that every aspect of this bill is useless. Even when they were asked by some members if there is any part of the legislation that they like or support, the response has been “no”. There are things within this legislation that I would think that even the Conservative Party would recognize have value to our community. Instead, it is a blanket “no”. I find that somewhat disingenuous and not reflective of the expectations that Canadians have of all parliamentarians from all political parties.

We need to see some more moderates coming from the Conservative Party. We need to see some more progressive members of the Conservative Party that existed many years ago take a look at this as an issue that Canadians are concerned about coast to coast. One member stood up to say x number of people made a submission and a majority of those people said that this is bad, bad, bad.

A Leger poll was conducted that talked about the general direction that this government and parliamentarians, I would suggest, are taking on the issue of gun control. Eighty-four per cent of Canadians said that we are on the right track in pursuing gun control reforms. That was through a Leger poll, not a Liberal poll. Whether it is through budgetary measures or legislative measures, Canadians will find that the things that we bring to the floor of the House of Commons are a reflection of what we believe Canadians expect us to do. That is what Bill C-21 is. It is a reflection of what a vast majority of Canadians support. I would ultimately argue that even Progressive Conservatives would support it.

One can go to the history of the gun registry when it first came into being. We are not bringing in the gun registry. Some Conservatives now are going to go out there and say, “the parliamentary secretary said the gun registry”. We are not bringing in the gun registry, but the idea actually originated from the Conservative Party. I know many people might find that hard to believe, but do not confuse the Conservative Party of the past with the Conservative Party of today. That was under Kim Campbell and the word “progressive” was in front of it. It came from the Conservative senator and Kim Campbell was looking at implementing it, and then the Reform Party and everything else came into being.

At the end of the day, when one looks at the legislation, one sees that it is contrary to what the members of the Conservative right-wing caucus are talking about. It is not an attack on law-abiding gun owners. There is a deep respect for law-abiding gun owners from, I believe, all caucuses that sit in the chamber. The bill addresses issues that are of the utmost importance to Canadians when it comes to gun control and what we can do to respond to issues such as the commission report that I just referenced. By the way, the commission did an incredible job, given the circumstances and the recommendations that it has brought forward.

When the Conservative Party members say they do not like any of the bill, what are they actually saying? Is it ghost guns? I am sure the members opposite know what a ghost gun is. If they do not, they will find that in the last number of years it has become a major issue throughout Canada in some cities more than in others. If they talk to some local police agencies or do a Google news search I am sure they will find some articles on it. They will see it is a serious issue and it is a growing issue. This legislation, Bill C-21, would be used as a tool in good part to deal with ghost guns. It is not just members of the Liberal Party or any other party who are saying it. We are hearing it from law enforcement agencies and we are hearing it from other concerned citizens and many different stakeholders out there.

When members in the Conservative caucus stand up and speak and they are posed the question, “Is there anything good about the legislation”, I would like to think that, even though we know they are voting against the bill, they would recognize the value of the attempt to deal with ghost guns. That is a positive thing and one would think that the Conservatives would be supporting the stakeholders, including law enforcement officers who are looking for that to be incorporated into law.

We talk about getting tough on people who commit crimes using guns. Within this legislation, we would expand the maximum time served. I believe it is something like 10 to 14 years, or something like that, within the legislation.

Time and again, Conservatives say we have to get tough on crime and go where the guns are, where the problems are. Not only are we dealing with that from a legislative point of view, but also from a budgetary point of view, and it has been effective. We just need to take a look at the results.

Stephen Harper reduced the support for border control. It is true. This government restored and enhanced that support. Last year, 1,200 guns were confiscated at the border, in addition to thousands of other weapons that were confiscated. I can assure members, because I have posed the question and no one has come forward to tell me I am wrong, that when Stephen Harper was in power, there was no year in which Conservatives even came close to what we did last year.

As a government, we can do more than one thing at a time: investing through budgetary measures to support law enforcement and border control agencies, which see tangible results, and bringing forward legislation. When Conservatives stand up and say that we should go after gun smuggling, we are doing that. The proof is in the pudding. I just mentioned the numbers. Let us contrast that to Stephen Harper. We are doing that. We did not need to be told by Conservatives to do that. The idea is that, as a government, we are taking a multi-faceted approach to ensuring there is a higher level of safety in our communities.

There was an investment of $250 million to address the root cause of gang violence. Conservatives say that we should go after the gangs. Part of going after the gangs is that we have to provide financial resources to support our law enforcement, much like the investments we made in border control, where we saw results. Then Conservatives say we are spending too much and we need to make cuts. That is the contrast. We see that in question period, where we are constantly being criticized for providing the types of supports that really make a difference.

The Conservative Party asked about the airsoft guns. That concern has been dealt with. There are other issues, but airsoft guns have in fact been dealt with. We saw a high sense of co-operation at committee. New Democrats brought forward amendments that have improved the legislation. That is something we have been saying consistently as a government, that we bring forward legislation and are open to improving and strengthening it where we can, and we have seen that with Bill C-21. The airsoft gun issue, in good part, has been resolved and the industry will play a vital role going forward.

When members of the Conservative Party say there is nothing inside the legislation, I think they need to read it, as opposed to the Conservative spin they are being provided before they walk in here to give their comments, because there are a lot of good things in this legislation. It is legislation the Conservatives should be supporting. I would say they should put the safety and concerns of Canadians ahead of raising dollars for the Conservative Party.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the government and the member have selective memories, going back to old memories and short memories. The member never told Canadians which version of Bill C-21 we are talking about. That is the confusion that the Liberals created throughout the whole process with the back-and-forth on this bill.

Now they are questioning why Conservatives do not trust what they are putting in the bill. How can we trust them after this long journey of changing their minds back and forth: move this, present this, abandon those models, take out these models? No one can understand anymore what the government is doing due to its short memory.

Which version of Bill C-21 are we dealing with here? At least then we will know what the member is talking about.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am talking about the bill that we are going to be voting on. I would encourage the entire Conservative caucus to read the bill that we are voting on. Unfortunately, even though there is so much good in this legislation that would make our communities safer and respond to many of the needs, things that not only Canadians but law enforcement officers and other stakeholders want to see, that does not matter because the leader of the Conservative Party has already taken a position.

As I said, it is the cash cow for the Conservative Party and its members are spreading misinformation, trying to create an atmosphere in which people are confused. They are doing it intentionally. They are doing it so they can raise money. That is why I say that the motivation, whether it is for the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc, is community safety, but not for the Conservatives. For them, it is about raising money for the next election.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague from Winnipeg North has to say about this. Tonight, people in the House keep complaining that the Conservatives do not understand the bill. In fact, they understand it very well, but they are twisting it, saying that the government is going to ban hunters' guns. However, if the government had done the job properly from the start and consulted with hunting groups, rather than moving forward with a bad bill that banned hunting rifles, we might not be in this position.

Would my colleague agree that we would not be where we are tonight, or at least, not so far down this path, if the government had done its job properly from the start rather than leaving bogus arguments as low-hanging fruit for the Conservatives to take advantage of?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we look at how the bill came to be, a great deal of consultation was done. As the Prime Minister has said in the past, at the end of the day, when the bill goes through the process in the chamber and goes to the standing committee, there is a reason why we have that process. It is so that if there are ways in which we can enhance and strengthen the bill, make it a more sound and better legislation, we should be doing that.

We can look at the number of opposition amendments that Liberals have supported over the years, even when we were in a majority government. That was often done. It was not done when Stephen Harper was prime minister. Could there have been more consultations? Whether in a provincial legislature or in the national legislature here in Ottawa, one can always do more consulting. There is no doubt about that. However, the homework was done on this particular bill. It is a great bill today and, as such, I expect that it will pass, despite the Conservatives' desire to filibuster and never see it pass.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to turn to the subject of other sport-shooting disciplines. The NDP had an amendment at committee that would have expanded the exemption of the handgun freeze to other disciplines, like the International Practical Shooting Confederation. We actually had our hopes up, because the member's Liberal colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, gave a beautiful speech at committee in support of our amendment. Unfortunately, he decided not to vote for it and abstained when push came to shove, but I was glad to see some Liberals support it.

We also have support from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which believes that existing law-abiding handgun owners should be able to continue to practise their sport. There are other countries around the world that have banned handguns but still allow their citizens to practise and compete in the sport. I think a lot of Canadians would find this to be a reasonable exemption for people who are obviously very passionate about what they do, put a lot of hours into it and train excessively to be the best they can be.

Why does the member not agree with his colleague from Kings—Hants? Why do the Liberals remain so obstructive to what I think a lot of people would see as a reasonable amendment to this bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the standing committee did a fabulous job in being able to go through this entire process, make the changes and come up with the necessary votes to be able to bring it to the state that the legislation is today.

I believe a majority of the House will, in fact, ultimately pass that. We are going to find out tomorrow, but the expectation is that it will pass.

I suspect that the member might want to introduce his changes in a possible private member's bill if he has not already started that.

At the end of the day, I think this is good legislation as is, and hopefully we will get it passed.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, a couple of us in the House asked questions of Conservative MPs, trying to see whether, in the bill, there was anything that restricted the use of firearms by hunters in Canada. They had trouble answering.

Can the MP be kind to us and to them and make it more clear as to whether, in the bill, there are actually things that are restricting the use of firearms by hunters?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and I share the same concern.

Others have actually posed that sort of question to members of the Conservative Party. They have been kind of dumbfounded, not knowing how to answer it, so they go right to the spin cycle that the Conservative Party says, and a part of that is “do not answer it”.

The simple answer is: zero. There are no restrictions. As I say, this is not, in any way, an attempt to put restrictions on those law-abiding gun owners.

We are being very respectful of that and we will continue to do so.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, it seems that the government members are looking for more information related to the firearms that Conservatives are concerned that the Liberals are seeking to ban, so I would seek unanimous consent from the House to table the amendment—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We cannot seek unanimous consent at this time.

The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

As he did in his speech about the Conservatives, I would like to talk to him about what the Liberals were doing several years ago. When the Liberals were the official opposition, some Liberal MPs swore up and down that they would never legalize drugs. The first thing they did in 2015 when they came to power was to legalize marijuana. The only thing stopping the Liberal government from legalizing hard drugs is the fact that they have a minority government.

Right now, Canadians are asking us to build their trust. They must trust the government on Bill C‑21 and believe that this legislation will never affect the guns of honest Canadians. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance said about an hour ago, here in the House, that the bill provides all the necessary tools to move forward and do even more.

Does the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance here in the House this evening mean that the Liberal government has a hidden agenda?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is no hidden agenda on the government's side. We are very much an accountable and transparent government.

It is interesting. The member wants to talk about one issue, and I can say that when I listen to the members talk across the way, they often talk about the bail issue.

We have Bill C-48 that has just been introduced. The Conservatives have a chance here. Bill C-48 is being exceptionally well received, virtually coast to coast to coast.

If they are genuinely concerned about bail reform, what they should be doing is saying, look, let us see if we can actually get this bill passed and out of second reading once it gets introduced, so that it can go to a standing committee.

One of the ways they can demonstrate, instead of all of the complaining and the unparliamentary word that I cannot use, instead of doing that, is to actually look at Bill C-48 and see if we can, once it is introduced for the second reading, get the support for it and send it to committee so that the committee will have all sorts of time then to be able to look at all of the wonderful things it is doing and seeing if maybe there are ways we can improve that.

I say Bill C-48 because the member went off this debate and this is how I would respond to it.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

I rise in strong opposition to Bill C-21, the latest ideological, evidence-free attack by the Liberals on law-abiding firearms owners.

Canada is facing a crime wave after eight years of this disastrous Liberal government. Violent crime is up 32%. Gang-related homicides have nearly doubled, up a staggering 94%. An unprecedented 10 police officers since September have been murdered in the line of duty. Random violent attacks on public transit and on the streets are now commonplace in cities right across Canada. More and more Canadians are feeling less safe in their communities, and that is because more communities that once were safe are no longer safe or are less safe now than when the Liberals took office.

By contrast to the staggering 32% increase in violent crime under the Liberals, under Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives, violent crime went down 33%. In fact, the Liberals have managed to do something that no government has done, which is to reverse a 30-year trend in which Canada, until the Liberals came to power, saw a downward spiral in crime. Now it is up 32%.

I say that because this violent crime wave did not happen in a vacuum, it did not happen by accident and it did not even happen as a result of inaction on the part of the Liberals. It happened as a result of very deliberate and very specific policies regarding Canada's criminal justice system embraced by the Liberals.

The Prime Minister has embraced, full stop, a series of virtue-signalling, woke criminal justice policies. These are policies that the Prime Minister has imported from the United States. They are disastrous policies that have been implemented south of the border by radical, left-wing, big-city mayors and district attorneys. They are policies that have resulted in large swaths of once great American cities, such as Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Oregon, turning into crime no-go zones. It is these American-style policies that the Prime Minister is importing to Canada.

Let us look at the disastrous record of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in 2018, was responsible for passing Bill C-75, which established catch-and-release bail. Thanks to the Prime Minister, a judge is now required to make it the primary consideration that an accused be released at the earliest opportunity with the least onerous conditions possible. This has resulted in a revolving door. It has meant that, in many instances, criminals are released back onto the streets and are out committing crimes the very same day they were arrested for the crimes they committed. That is catch-and-release Liberal bail.

Let us look at some of the statistics as a consequence.

In the city of Vancouver, 40 hard-core criminals are responsible for 6,000 arrests a year. That is 150 arrests per offender. Liberal catch-and-release bail has meant that a small number of hard-core criminals are overwhelmingly and disproportionately responsible for a significant number of criminal incidents.

In Edmonton, a community I am proud to represent in this place, a young mother, Carolann Robillard, and her 11-year-old daughter, Sara, are now dead thanks to Liberal catch-and-release bail. Carolann and Sara were brutally murdered, stabbed to death at a park, of all places, at an elementary school.

They were brutally stabbed to death by who? It was a total stranger who happen to be a hard-core violent criminal, who, thanks to Liberal catch-and-release, had been released on bail just 18 days prior. Who was this violent offender who stabbed to death an 11-year-old girl and her young mother outside an elementary school? He was someone who had a 14-year rap sheet of committing violent attacks.

He had been convicted multiple times of serious offences such as aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, multiple robberies and assaulting a correctional officer. Last year, he attacked a 12-year-old girl on an LRT in Edmonton. That is who was released thanks to Liberal catch-and-release bail. He never should have been released. He should have been kept behind bars. He never should have been on bail. It is outrageous that he was.

It is outrageous that the folks across the way can so sanctimoniously defend a series of policies that are indefensible. They are putting lives at risk and endangering public safety. How dare they.

It is not just catch and release. This is a government that, last year, passed Bill C-5, the fourth piece of legislation the government introduced in this Parliament. It is obviously a top priority for the government. What does Bill C-5 do? It significantly expands house arrest for some very serious offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking. In other words, criminals convicted of such offences will not have to spend a single day in jail.

What about firearms? We hear a lot about the Liberals' professed concern about firearms. It seems they are obsessed with firearms as objects, but they have not figured out that firearms do not commit crimes; criminals with firearms commit crimes. What have the Liberals done about criminals who go out and commit offences with guns? Bill C-5 actually eliminates mandatory jail time for serious gun crime, including robbery with a gun, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure and weapons trafficking. That is the approach of the Liberals.

It is a policy of the woke. It is a policy grounded in absurdity. Compounding that absurdity is Bill C-21, which is now before the House. It is a bill that does not take illegal firearms off the streets. It does not keep repeat offenders behind bars where they belong. Incredibly, it goes after law-abiding, licensed firearms owners, who are among the group of Canadians least likely to commit a crime.

Those are the people the Liberals are going after. It could not be more absurd. The government's set of priorities could not be more backwards.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will ask the hon. member opposite the same question I have asked many times this evening during this debate.

The Conservatives keep saying that we will not allow people to use commonly used guns, whether it be hunters, farmers or whomever, and that these weapons would be banned forever and a day. Could the member list one legally used hunting rifle that would be banned by this bill?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, what I will say to my friend, the member for Avalon, is that the Prime Minister said this in December: “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt.” Those are the words of the Prime Minister. It is true that the Liberals, after considerable pressure, withdrew their table-dropped amendments, but they have established a firearms advisory committee that is going to be tasked with future bans, and the Prime Minister has signalled very clearly that hunters are a target of the government.

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

Madam Speaker, after listening to my colleague, one would think that Bill C-21 is the worst bill that ever existed. I do not know whether he is aware that his fellow party members voted in favour of most of the amendments that were moved to improve this bill.

Take, for example, the ghost gun and yellow flag measures that help women who are victims of domestic violence. Even his colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound moved an extremely important amendment to allow gun owners to give their guns to someone else while they seek help for a mental health issue. Everyone was in favour of that amendment. The Conservatives also voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois's amendment to require people to have a licence to purchase cartridge magazines.

In short, the Conservative Party helped improve Bill C‑21. Is my colleague aware of that?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is true that the Conservatives supported certain amendments at committee. We helped improve a terrible bill to make it a slightly less terrible bill.

The member cites red flag laws. I note that section 117 of the Criminal Code already provides law enforcement with the authority to seize firearms when there is a safety issue, without a warrant. That aspect of the bill, really, is not an improvement, and it does not take away from the fact that the entire concept of the bill is misplaced. It targets law-abiding firearms owners, people who are not going out committing crimes. They are the targets of Bill C-21. The government should really be going after the gangs and criminals who are going out and committing crimes with guns.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has been talking about going after crimes. I would like to hear his opinion on a part of the bill that has been overshadowed by much of today's debate.

The National Association of Women and the Law contributed greatly to the committee hearings on this bill. It submitted a lot of amendments that really helped improve it. It has publicly stated that many of the provisions in Bill C-21 are going to help women in domestic violence situations by providing that a firearms licence must be revoked when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that someone may have engaged in family violence, by making sure there is a protection order and by making sure that somebody would be ineligible to hold a licence if they pose a threat or risk to the safety of another person.

I wonder if my hon. colleague can talk about that. This is a very well-respected organization that studied the bill and came up with great amendments, and it has publicly stated that these provisions are actually going to make lives safer.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, some 20 women's organizations came before committee and said that the bill was problematic. Specifically, the so-called red flag provisions of the bill were problematic by virtue of the fact that section 117 of the Criminal Code already gives law enforcement the tools necessary to seize weapons when a woman is in danger.

What the Liberals are providing is that, instead of law enforcement doing its job, a woman in danger would now be required to go to court. Women's organizations have said this is burdensome, puts women at risk and does not do the job.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we go again. This reminds me of an old song I used to like to listen to in high school. Whitesnake was the band, and the lyrics are “Here I go again...down the only road I've ever known”. This speaks to this bill. This is the Liberals. Here they go again, going down the only road they have ever known.

Violent crime in this country is up by a third since the Liberal Party took office. Murders have doubled and our border to the south is like a sieve, with black market handguns flowing through there every single day. What is the Liberal response to this? What is their big idea? What are they going to do to protect Canadians in the face of rising crime and in the face of porous borders with black market handguns flowing through on a daily basis?

The Liberals' response is, again, “Here we go again. Let us just keep going down the only road we have ever known”, but it is a nonsensical one. It is one we have, sadly, seen before, and we have seen it too often from that same bunch over there. Their response to illegal guns coming in from the United States and getting into the hands of criminal gangs in cities of this country is to simply deprive millions of law-abiding Canadians of their right to own legal property, their hunting rifles. Here we go again, with the Liberals going down the only road they have ever known. In doing so, they are trying to deny and deflect from the fact that their real goal is actually to deprive hunters, farmers and indigenous people, anyone and everyone who legitimately owns firearms, of those firearms they have used legally and responsibly, often for much of their lives.

The Prime Minister already admitted that taking hunting rifles is his goal, when he said, during a CTV interview, “Our focus now is on saying okay...yes...we're going to have to take [some guns] away from people who were using them to hunt.” That has been made pretty clear. The Liberals want to take away firearms that not only are part of our collective history in Canada but also are embedded in rural culture and in traditional ways of life in this country. They are so dishonest about their intentions that they try to do this under the guise of addressing an urban violence problem.

It defies common sense, actually, to believe banning legal firearms of licensed owners would somehow address a problem of illegal guns in the hands of criminals, but there we have it. That is the Liberal brainwave for public safety. It certainly would not bring about the outcomes they claim. They know this, and it galls them to think Canadians know it too. The government faced a massive public backlash from ordinary Canadians all across the political spectrum who saw its actions for what they are, which is the largest attack on hunters and duck hunters in Canadian history. Then they backpedalled and temporarily paused their attack. They were no doubt taken aback a bit by realizing their distaste for legal firearm owners and the legal activities they like to enjoy was not as widely shared as they thought.

However, the Liberals' endgame has always remained the same, and here we are with “new” amendments to Bill C-21. I, like most members, including, I am sure, most of the Liberals who are putting forward Bill C-21 in the first place, have been swamped with calls and letters from constituents pleading for common sense to prevail. They ask what sense it makes to pursue a so-called gun control strategy that relies on further penalizing some of the world's most regulated and restricted legal firearm owners, while at the same time turning a completely blind eye to the flood of smuggled illegal guns being used by criminals in the streets of our major cities. It is a great question that is central to the matter, and it is one the Liberals continually fail to answer.

That is why this issue continues to simmer, despite the government's best efforts to defuse it. It is because Canadians understand instinctively that the government proposals here make no sense, if the stated goal is actually to address crime. No one believes that going after hunters will reduce violent crime. I do not think even most Liberals truly believe it, but they pursue it anyway because it is a matter of ideology for them, rather than one of intellect. We have been dealing with this issue for years, but the Liberals are content to ignore the repeated common-sense arguments against their attempts to end legal gun ownership in Canada.

I have spoken on this many times, and I think, if I am telling the truth, there is not a whole lot I have left unsaid, so I thought I would spend a bit of time differently, to allow some of my very concerned constituents to have their own say on the matter here in the chamber. I think the Liberals need to hear it from these people first-hand. I am unfortunately under no illusion that the members of the Liberal Party will care about what law-abiding firearm owners have to say, but they are going to have to hear it anyway.

I received a letter recently from Joel in Rocky View County, in my riding of Banff—Airdrie, who quite rightly pointed out that granting the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security broad powers to address unlawfully manufactured, unserialized and untraceable firearms could inadvertently infringe upon the rights of responsible gun owners and impose unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens. Joel says that the amendments to the definition of prohibited firearms seem overly broad and lack clear criteria and could potentially lead to legal ambiguity and confusion, impacting the rights of legitimate firearms owners without effectively targeting criminal activity. He is exactly right. The bill would do nothing to impact criminal activity.

I got another letter, from Lars, who wrote to me from my hometown of Airdrie. He asks when this constant attack on legal firearm owners would stop. He asks what has been done in the meantime to strengthen our justice system or resources to our border to prevent the smuggling of illegal firearms. He notes that the Liberal government has been under scandal over and over again, yet it is telling Canadians what it takes to be safe. Lars says that this needs to stop. Those are more great points.

Justin, who resides in my riding, in Morley in the Stoney Nakoda Nations, points out the complaints many indigenous people have about the bill, and he talks about their frustration at trying to get the Prime Minister to respect their concerns. He asks me to please let the Prime Minister know that, as owners, they will never abide by measures that take away their personal property. He notes that there are many indigenous hunters on the reserve who depend on traditional hunting to support their families. He closes by saying that I can read his email in Parliament, and that he stands with all legal firearm owners, as they were never consulted.

There are so many more examples I could submit for the record, and they all have the same theme. This is probably not surprising, when we consider all the ways the Liberals have tried to make it so much easier for criminals to flourish. They have repealed mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. They have made it easier to get bail. They have failed to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border. Their catch-and-release policies for violent criminals and their lax attitudes toward secure borders are clearly not working.

The Liberals are trying to convince Canadians that, somehow, going after hunters and other legitimate firearms owners would reduce violent crime in this country. It is a nonsensical plan. It would have the effect of doing nothing to deter the real problem of illegal guns and the associated gun crime.

Instead of spending billions of taxpayer dollars to confiscate the legal property of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous Canadians, we could see a common-sense firearms policy under a Conservative government that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and leave alone those who legally possess guns and use them responsibly.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, many times in the member opposite's speech and in many of his colleagues', they have stated that what needs to be done in order to tackle gun crime in this country is to bring in stiffer penalties and more measures at the border. I find it interesting that they all failed to state that Bill C-21 does that.

I want to know if the member agrees with increasing the maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment for firearms-related offences. That is a good measure in the bill. Do Conservatives not think that increasing penalties is a good measure?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I suppose if the member wants to believe the talking points she has been handed to read in the House she would make that argument. What she is failing to understand is that we are not talking about a mandatory penalty or even a minimum penalty; we are talking about a maximum penalty.

Anyone who understands the criminal justice system knows that a maximum penalty means it cannot be more than that, but it certainly does nothing to penalize crime. There are a lot of measures that could be taken to deal with the gun crime we are seeing in our cities, but that one is laughable to say the least. The bill does zero at trying to address crime.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talks a lot about doing more to address crime. I agree with him.

The only measure in Bill C‑21 that the government proposed for countering firearms trafficking is to change the maximum sentences from 10 years to 14 years for anyone found guilty of firearms trafficking.

Although this is not a bad measure, the problem is that it is quite rare for someone to get the maximum sentence of 10 years these days. Why? It is because criminal organizations use people who do not have a criminal record to smuggle illegal firearms across the border. As a result, these people get lesser sentences. They rarely get the 10-year maximum.

Today, with Bill C‑21, even if we increase the maximum sentence to 14 years, will that really have an impact? I do not think so. I think that my colleague may agree with me. Does he think that is enough?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the member. That measure will not have an impact on crime in this country. This bill only affects gun owners who are not responsible for crimes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, although there was a lot of disinformation and misinformation in it, I thank the member for his intervention. I would have very much appreciated hearing about, with respect to Bill C-21, how hard my NDP colleagues are willing to work to protect the rights of people. I asked a different Conservative member about the outdated information Conservatives are sharing this evening in this debate.

I know Bill C-21, in its current state, has the best balance and offers many ways to ensure that the right of indigenous peoples to hunt is protected, and that hunters who are lawful gun owners are able to continue using their rifles. In this whole process, it has been Conservatives who have made a lot of mistakes, including trying to ensure there are no more exemptions for sport shooters.

I would like to ask the member what his read of Bill C-21 is with respect to what rifle is being banned that would not allow hunters to hunt or would not stopping criminals from using—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time. I have to give the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie a few seconds to answer.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not really even sure what the member's question was, but I did hear her talk about there somehow being disinformation in what I had to say. I would challenge her to stand up to give an example of one piece of disinformation she heard.

However, I can say what is disinformation. Every time the NDP members in the House stand up and call themselves an opposition party, that is disinformation. What we are seeing is a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle has the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with respect to firearms. To begin, I would like to say that, as everyone knows, I will be voting in favour of Bill C‑21. The reason is that, thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois at committee, most of the criticisms have been addressed.

Today, we have a bill that is far from perfect. The government rejected our proposals, which were very reasonable. However, let me say that Bill C‑21 is better than it used to be. Let us remember that the bill was introduced to attack the black market for firearms in Canadian cities. Instead, the government attacked hunters.

In Laurentides—Labelle, outfitters, nature reserves, controlled harvesting zones and hunting cabins are an integral part of our regional identity. Hunting is a major activity. It is important to protect it and keep it alive. That is why I am pleased to say that it is thanks to the Bloc Québécois that hunters will be able to continue practising their sport in Laurentides—Labelle.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who is here beside me. I want to congratulate her on a job well done. It must have taken her so many hours, emails and studies to go from layperson to subject matter expert. She deserves so much credit.

What happened is that, together, we convinced the government to withdraw its amendments and remove the reference to hunting rifles. I am going to address hunters, but before I do, I want to mention that the government tabled 400 pages of amendments without any explanation. There were thousands of models of firearms listed in those pages. The government was disorganized, to be frank. This made hunters angry. That is an unacceptable way to work.

In its bill, which is intended to curb gun crime in cities, the government had used some strange definitions, to say the least. It referred to hunting rifles when they were not the problem. It is easy to imagine how angry hunters were when they saw that they were being treated like criminals. Moreover, the government did not consult them. We need to go after the gun runners and criminal groups first and foremost, not the people who drive down Highway 117 to the controlled harvesting zones to hunt.

Hunting rifles were never included in the bill. The government wanted to create confusion, and it worked. It took political pressure from the Bloc Québécois for the government to recognize its mistake and change the definition to make it clearer.

I want to say to the hunters, to everyone who contacted me, to the hundreds who have written to me, who have called me, who have stopped me in the street to express their concerns, that they are not criminals. They are not dangerous. The Bloc Québécois will always stand by their side. They have already seen that. I will be by their side to stand up for their sport, their strength and their honour. They know how to handle guns. They know how to protect their guns and, above all, how to respect their environment and all livestock.

I would like to tell them that they are not the problem. The government went after the wrong target and needs to acknowledge that.

I am pleased to be able to address the people of Laurentides—Labelle on this subject because there has been a lot of disinformation and manipulation of public opinion. I thank those who had the patience to listen to everything that was said. Today, we set the record straight. That is what happened.

I have said it before and I will say it again: When Bill C-21 was introduced, hunting rifles were not at all affected by the bill. That is still the case today after the study in committee. I want to reassure hunters because the Bloc Québécois worked really hard to ensure that hunting rifles would not be affected. I will say it again. Hunting rifles are not affected.

The Conservative Party is once again trying to lead people to believe that Bill C‑21 is the biggest assault on hunters across the country. Unfortunately, I do not know whether they read the bill as amended by the committee. That is a good question. No hunting rifles will be banned with the passage of this bill. The new definition of prohibited firearms is prospective, which means it will only apply to weapons that do not even exist yet but will come on the market in the future.

I do not know why they keep scaring hunters with this. In fact, I wonder, are they doing this to get votes, regardless of the facts? That is another question, and it is unfortunate.

At the start of my speech, I talked about how important hunting is in Laurentides—Labelle. I am thinking about the Papineau-Labelle wildlife reserve, the Rouge-Matawin wildlife reserve and the Mazana controlled harvesting zone. I will name several. I am thinking about Mekoos, Jodoin, Cecaurel, Mitchinamecus, Fer à cheval. I have been to all of them, they are my playground. I could also mention the Air Mont-Laurier outfitters. People fly in to hunt and enjoy nature in the north.

I can assure everyone that Bill C‑21 will not interfere with our activities.

As the member for Laurentides—Labelle, I will always stand up for my region, its economy, its environment and its development.

I have two riding neighbours on the Liberal benches. I want the people of Argenteuil—La Petite Nation and Pontiac to know that the Bloc Québécois understands rural issues. We support rural communities, and we recognize all the effort that goes into regional development. We always work toward maintaining the right balance between everything. We work for these people.

The Bloc Québécois has been very clear. We want to see fewer handguns on the streets of Montreal and Laval. We must make our streets safer. We must ensure that criminals do not have access to guns to shoot people in the street. This is why the Bloc Québécois is working so hard in committee and in the House to get the government back on track. We are the voice of reason between the sloppy Liberals and the hysterical Conservative.

In closing, I want to tell the people of Laurentides—Labelle that the Bloc Québécois is the party of the regions and of regional development. It is the party that represents the voice of Quebeckers in the House of Commons. I will always work for the people in my community. That is why I am here.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned in her speech the poor crafting of the original bill, the massive amounts of amendments introduced by the Liberals and then, of course, the work done by her colleagues, of which she is so proud. I am incredibly proud of the work my colleagues did to bring forward common-sense amendments to make the bill better.

Some of the Liberals in this place have stood today and accused Conservatives of a lot of the propaganda, disinformation and misinformation, which she also mentioned, for the purpose of fundraising. Does the member think the Liberals have used the bill in the same way and for many of the same purposes? Could she speak to how important it is to do that hard work to be an opposition party that works to propose solutions for legislation?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.

With what is happening with the different parties, I believe that there is always more we can do.

The Bloc Québécois acts according to its conscience, intellect and solely in the interest of our people. I believe that answers the question that the opposition parties, especially the Bloc, which keeps the interests of Quebeckers in the forefront, are not being partisan or playing politics with this issue.

On one side or the other, there were good ideas at every stage in the past few weeks.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Laurentides—Labelle had very thoughtful remarks on this bill. I have found over the course of the debate that there has been a lot of muddying of the waters, where Conservatives and people on social media are bringing up the firearms advisory committee, which I will state for the record is a body that already exists. They talk about how the government is going to use that body to strike out firearms. That is a power that the government already has under the Criminal Code.

I would like my colleague to reflect on that as part of the misinformation out there. A lot of people are trying to confuse those existing powers with those found in Bill C-21. Could the member clarify that those are in fact very separate elements?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, someone mentioned political strategy earlier. What I said earlier in my remarks was that this needs to be addressed, because it is serious. With my colleague leading the way, the Bloc Québécois has put pressure on the government to stop. People are being shot down in the street. At some point, the government needs to wake up and take action.

Yes, certain measures can be taken, but it is also important to have a clear conscience and carry out consultations in order to end up with a good bill, even if that does take a while. At the same time, this is one step, but it is far from complete.

That is why I said that the process was very messy right from the outset.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk to us about the red flag provision that the government proposed in Bill C‑21. I think she has heard me talk about it often. In the beginning, it looked like a good measure that would help women who are victims of domestic violence, but all of the women's groups that appeared before the committee told us that it would not help them. They were afraid that it would cause law enforcement to shirk its responsibilities and put the burden on victims.

The Bloc Québécois voted against these provisions in Bill C‑21. The Conservative Party did too. However, the government and the NDP still went ahead with this measure.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. I am sure that she has women's groups in her riding that are disappointed that the government is moving forward with this measure.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very specific example of the importance of listening to our constituents and representing them. When we consult people, when we listen to them and understand them, then we need to act on what they say.

That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois did with the red flag provision.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks by thanking the pages as we take part in an evening debate. I do not know if this is a first for Parliament, but I am speaking while wearing my cleats, which I have not taken off because tonight was the long-awaited soccer game between the House of Commons representatives, the Commanders, and the team of pages. I think there were over a hundred of them on the sidelines. I was surprised at how relentless they were. While they are great at bringing things to people in the House, they are also great at taking the ball away from us. Still, we won two to one, with a goal from Benoît Dupras, whom I want to commend. He is from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. He is a parliamentary intern and scored the winning goal. I wanted to mention that.

I rise today as a member who represents a rural riding to speak to Bill C‑21 on gun control, and also to recognize the insights of the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I invite members to take the time to read the report entitled “A Path Forward: Reducing Gun and Gang Violence in Canada”.

The first step in solving a problem is to understand it. That is what I do with my own files, including the issue of athletes who are victims of abuse and mistreatment. Sport is a cause for concern at this time, and the Bloc Québécois will continue to demand that the government adopt a holistic approach by launching a public inquiry to understand the systemic problems that helped maintain the culture of silence and the toxic culture.

That is why I am not at all surprised by the results achieved by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who was able to constantly seek a consensus. I thank her, because I am convinced that she did all the necessary work to achieve the result that we have before us. I tip my hat to her because it was a successful collaboration.

Developing effective public safety legislation is not limited to theory, but also requires close attention and a deep understanding of the problems underlying gun violence. It also requires, as I was saying a few minutes ago, a comprehensive approach and a careful analysis of the contributing factors to this complex reality.

Parliamentarians have understood and recognized that developing effective legislation cannot be done in a vacuum. It is essential to listen to and understand the diverse perspectives of stakeholders, including public safety experts, rights advocacy groups, law enforcement organizations and members of civil society. This inclusive step opens the door to gathering a variety of ideas and taking into account the concerns and experiences of all the players involved. One of the contributions of the Bloc Québécois is to ensure that these people, especially our hunting federations, are heard.

Communities affected by gun violence needed to be listened to first. It is important. Parliamentarians obtained valuable information on the local realities, the specific needs and the potential solutions. This helps create a global strategy that meets the unique challenges of each region while addressing the structural problems on a national level.

The Bloc Québécois worked hard to speak on behalf of and give a voice to those who are affected by gun violence and ineffective public safety policies. We have finally taken an important step.

The airsoft associations in my riding and across Quebec and Canada will be happy to hear that the political parties unanimously decided to remove the clause banning airsoft guns. That amendment was adopted, which means that airsoft associations can continue to practise their sport without any of the previous restrictions. Airsoft associations should be pleased about that decision, which will allow them to continue their activities in accordance with the new regulations.

When the folks from the airsoft associations contacted me, I also wondered about how these provisions would affect biathletes. From what I understand, the use of guns in a sport context is generally dealt with in a distinct set of regulations or protocols, so the acquisition, possession and use of guns in a biathlon context is dealt with separately from the firearms framework.

I am here for the hunters in my region, those at the other end of Highway 117. They expressed serious concerns following the hastily made announcement regarding the amendments proposed by the government in the fall of 2022. I was able to learn what a Rover and an AR‑15 are.

Thanks to the Bloc's interventions, however, some problematic items were rectified. First, the infamous list, which was a source of confusion, has been removed. This was a list of firearms that were considered assault weapons. It created uncertainty. That is what had the worst impact on hunters. When this list was removed, a major source of their concern disappeared.

In addition, the specific reference to “hunting rifle” in the prospective definition of assault weapons was also removed. This reference could have led to confusion and unwarranted restrictions for hunters who legitimately use hunting rifles for their activities. Thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, this reference was removed, which addressed hunters' concerns. In particular, I want to acknowledge my friend Danny Lalancette, who brought this to my attention.

The Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs said it was satisfied with the changes made by the government following the Bloc's interventions. These adjustments corrected the initial gaps and ambiguities and thus ensured that hunters could continue their activities while complying with the new regulations, without unwarranted restrictions. I want to acknowledge the leadership they showed in committee.

Let us talk about the red flag and yellow flag system, which is included in the bill. Red flag measures allow any person to apply to a judge for an order to immediately remove firearms from an individual who may be a danger to themselves or others. These orders can also be used to remove firearms from an individual who may make them available to a person who poses a threat.

However, domestic violence victim advocacy groups are concerned about this measure and indicated that they would like to see it removed. These groups are concerned that it would relieve the police of their responsibility and put the burden of safety on victims. Despite the Bloc Québécois's opposition to this section, the NDP and the Liberal Party voted to retain it. I therefore call for greater vigilance at the slightest indication that this solution is losing its effectiveness.

Under the yellow flag measure, an individual's firearms licence could be temporarily suspended if information comes to light that calls into question their eligibility for that licence. This suspension would prevent the acquisition of new firearms, but would not allow the seizure of firearms already owned by the individual. However, these firearms could not be used, for example, at a shooting range during the suspension.

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 seeks to enhance safety by quickly taking firearms licences away from such individuals in order to reduce the risk of gun violence in situations of domestic violence.

In closing, the drafting of this bill has once again proven how important it is to take a holistic approach and to have a sound understanding of the issues underlying gun violence. The legislative and regulatory review would not have had the same scope had the committee and my colleague not considered the social, economic and cultural factors that contribute to this problem.

It is clearly essential that we listen to and understand different perspectives and take into account local realities. Consultation with stakeholders, including public safety experts, advocacy groups, law enforcement agencies and members of civil society, is key to developing effective solutions separate from the passage of the bill. I am thinking about access to mental health care, crime prevention, education, support for victims and many other things.

By working together, a balanced approach can be achieved that protects communities while respecting the rights of individuals and supporting legitimate sporting activities. Developing firearms laws and regulations needs be an ongoing process. It must be adaptive and inclusive in order to meet the changing needs of society and keep everyone safe.

In closing, I want to say that my thoughts go out to all the victims of gun violence. I am thinking in particular of the victims of Polytechnique and the PolyRemembers group, as well as the victims of the Quebec City mosque.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned he is from a rural area in Quebec. I am from a rural area in Nova Scotia. We have a lot of individuals who competitively sport shoot with handguns. One of the things I have said on the record is that I hope the government can address, in regulatory measures in the days ahead, a pathway for competitive sport shooters. Right now the definition is Olympic shooters, which is relatively actually quite narrow in the country. It would exclude, I would presume, shooters in his riding and mine.

I am wondering if he has heard about that from IPSC or other members in his riding and what his response would be to that tonight.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who I was expecting on the soccer pitch this evening, but who was not there. I hope he will be there next time, because we played together last year.

That said, I am pleased that he is addressing the subject of shooting clubs and sport shooting. I am a hunter. I have a hunting licence. It is a family activity that I wanted to do. In my case, it is more about having a glass of wine in the evening and spending time in the bush than being an experienced hunter, but I went through the process.

What is interesting is that I had never used a firearm. I was able to obtain my possession permit. I went through the process with the help of Pierre Auger, a retired police officer who looks after the shooting range in Rouyn‑Noranda

I was pleased, although not surprised, to see the supervision provided at the shooting range. This practice is strictly controlled. It is very rigorous. There is training, and safety is very important.

Why are these places important? If people practice shooting in these places, then we would be able to identify people who might have suspicious behaviour. Maybe we should make it mandatory for people to spend time at these shooting ranges to reinforce the safety aspect. These places are essential in our communities, especially the rural ones.

If we think about other measures for improving the use of firearms or licensing, maybe guidance and education by peers at shooting ranges might be an approach worth exploring.

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

Madam Speaker, I will ask the member from the Bloc a question that I asked one of his colleagues during the discussion at committee.

As I heard from them, some of the initiatives the Liberal government is forwarding are similar to those that have already been implemented in Quebec. However, when I asked if there was data that supports the idea that any of these measures would result in a reduction of violent crime, specifically violent gun crime, I did not get an answer.

I would ask that simple question. Certainly, the evidence that I have heard from my constituents and from experts across the country is that this legislation will do nothing to address the real problem, which is criminals, who are not following the rules to begin with, and will target law-abiding firearms owners like hunters, farmers and sports shooters.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, if people say that the Parti Québécois is the party of the regions, it has to do with interventions such as those. We are ensuring that hunters and farmers are not covered by this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I just want to make a small aside about the name of the party mentioned. It is not the Parti Québécois. As far as I know, that party does not sit in the House. I just wanted to remind the hon. member of that.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

One of the reasons we in the Bloc Québécois define ourselves as the party of the regions is because we had the ability to defend the interest of hunters and farmers when they needed it, and that includes having the infamous list removed.

To answer my colleague's question, there are certain initiatives happening in Quebec. When there are problematic situations, we make sure to take action through various pilot projects or other projects put forward in Quebec. I am repeating what I said earlier, but there is real training that happens at shooting ranges to ensure that hunters understand the full scope of owning a gun. Perhaps such training should be expanded. People have to know how to use it the right way.

Maybe we should even make it a mandatory condition of gun ownership. If a person has been convicted of wrongdoing, the shooting clubs provide training to make sure that person will not do irreparable harm and that they understand the scope of owning a firearm.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to be here tonight to debate Bill C‑21 and the proposals to protect public safety and the rights and privileges of hunters and gun owners.

I would like to begin by mentioning that, as a member of Parliament, I represent a rural riding in Nova Scotia, Kings—Hants. There are many hunters and many people who own handguns and firearms in my riding.

It is part of our way of life. Every one of us who comes to the House does so bringing the voice and lived experiences of their constituents and, I would say, the experience of those in the communities they have the privilege of representing.

I want to start by saying that I do represent a rural riding. I have 20 minutes tonight, which is good. It is a privilege to be able to speak to this legislation for that length of time. I want to start with just a bit of a story.

My father taught me how to shoot a rifle and a shotgun. I would say it is almost a rite of passage in rural areas, although maybe a little less so now than it used to be. Guns are part of the culture in Canada, certainly the culture in rural communities. I do not actively shoot today. I have had lessons and the courses, but I do not actively hunt, and I do not actively shoot. However, I certainly respect those who do.

I can appreciate that, any time we have the conversation about public safety, gun control and legal gun owners, there can be a lot of tension. This is a challenging subject. It brings forward emotion. I have seen that at committee. I do not sit as a permanent member, but I did have the opportunity to sit in for a couple of hours last week. I have seen the debate here in the House, and how this is framed.

I hope to be able to give my perspective on the bill writ large, and maybe even, just broader, how we could tackle some of the challenges that we are seeing across the country. I want to start by saying that the issue of public safety is an important one in the country. We are seeing challenges with gun violence from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia and everywhere in between. I have a statistic.

Gun violence has increased 81% since 2009.

It is not unlike other challenges. We cannot point to one single factor, as to why there might be that certain outcome, but it is certainly an issue that we have to tackle with a nuanced approach, with a lot of different mechanisms moving forward.

I look forward to talking about Bill C-21 and also some of the work that the government is doing to try to tackle what I think is a challenging problem. We are not the United States. I do not say that loosely. We are not seeing mass shootings every single day in the news. I just got back from Washington. I have to say that, when we turn on the news and look at the United States, sadly, it is happening almost every single day.

We should not make our policies in Canada on the basis of what is happening in the United States, but we should also not be naive to the fact that, traditionally, this country has been influenced by what happens in the continent. When we talk about border policy and gun control, part of that is about trying to actually stem the tide of illegal guns that come across the border.

The minister has spoken about the work the government is doing and the investments that have been made.

These investments are aimed at stopping illegal guns from entering Canada, because they pose a problem in our communities, in our provinces and across the country.

In what we have to focus on, we have to try to strike a balance between infringing on the individual privileges that exist in this country and understanding that we cannot completely stop every single act that may happen in the country. There are people who, for a variety reasons, may want to cause harm to our neighbours, our family, our friends or our countrymen. If we could take reasonable measures to try to stop the incidents of that, I think that would be appropriate.

Everyone in the House is going to have a different perspective on what that actually is, how far the limit should be. I heard some members in the House who think that the existing laws, even before Bill C-21 was proposed, might have been too stringent and that we did not need the ones that were already there, such as the order in council in 2020.

I know there are members of the House who would stand up here today and say they are completely against it. There are other members of the House who would probably like to see Bill C-21 be an even further measure, and there are some, perhaps, who are somewhere in between, so we all bring our perspectives to this conversation.

I am of the view that we already have very good, strong gun laws. I support the measures writ large that are in Bill C-21. I have certain concerns I will address in the time I have remaining. We do have good gun laws and we do have good policy. If there are ways we can tweak it to move the yardstick as we see it here in Bill C-21, I do not see that as extremely problematic.

It is important to note that, with what is contained in Bill C-21, anyone who has been impacted by gun violence should not rest assured this bill alone would solve that. It is going to take a nuanced approach, as I said. We need to invest in the border, which the government is doing and is in the process of trying to tackle. The statistics I have before me show that CBSA has stopped more illegal guns than ever before from coming across the border, because of some of the enhanced measures that are there.

We need to invest in social programs. We are seeing some of the violence in our communities, particularly in urban centres, and some of this is driven by challenges around mental health. This is driven by addictions. It is driven by a lack of social programs for young people to have a place, mentorship and an ability to be part of something bigger. Trying to restrict guns will not solve that on its own.

The government has been very clear. Sometimes when we listen in the House, we would not know there is anything else going on because there is such a focus on this piece of legislation as opposed to on the broader work happening. I just want to highlight that this is going to be crucial in the days ahead. Those who go back to their community and talk about this legislation need to also talk about everything else that is happening in the context of solving the issue, because putting forward simplistic solutions to very nuanced problems is not going to get us very far.

Sadly, my riding, Kings—Hants, is where the worst mass murder in our country's history took place.

I remember well that day, three years ago. I woke up on a Sunday morning, and my wife brought to my attention that there was a shooter on the loose in Nova Scotia. It ended not too far down the road from me. Of all the members of Parliament in the House, and I do not wear it as a badge of honour and I do not wear it proudly, I have been able to see exactly the way in which gun violence has impacted communities in my riding in the most tragic way.

That brings me to the point of what Bill C-21 would actually do. There is a lot rhetoric. The word “misinformation” is getting used too much. There are a lot of overblown dynamics of what this bill would and would not do, so let me lay it out. This bill would establish a formal handgun freeze, in that one would not be able to import or buy a handgun unless one is an exempted individual under the legislation.

The bill would establish really important red flag laws. I want to recognize the member for Oakville North—Burlington. She has taken a considerable amount of abuse sitting on the public safety committee. She and I may not agree on exactly everything, but I am proud of the work she does. I texted her the other day when this bill made its way through committee. Notwithstanding a few of my concerns, I said that this would make a difference. I just want to go on the record and say that. Some of the red flag laws would be for intimate partner violence. There would be an ability for the RCMP to be aware of those individuals who could be red-flagged, and there could be a court process to revoke a gun licence until such time as we know it is safe for an individual to have one.

With respect to yellow-flag laws, as opposed to a court order, which is a higher threshold, the chief firearms officer already has a lot of discretion in the country. They would have the ability to revocate a licence and actually obtain the gun in a situation where it was demonstrably the case that they had to prevent an individual from harming either themselves or other people. Those are good things. In fact, Conservatives voted, I believe, for some of these measures. I have not heard all the speeches tonight. The Conservatives do not like to talk a lot about that, but there are some good measures for which there is undoubtedly a pretty good consensus in this House to move forward.

With respect to ghost guns, there was no criminal provision for someone who would take disparate parts and be able to build an actual gun that could cause harm. There would now be actual criminal provisions against ghost guns. Again, this is something that was approved across party lines, and I certainly commend that.

The legislation also walks back, as members will remember, the dreaded amendments. With respect to the amendments that the government sought to table, the intention was right. The application was wrong, in terms of what it would do. There was massive confusion. In fact, when I was back home in my riding just recently, I was still getting asked questions on what the government had tabled, back before Christmas. Thankfully, that process has been simplified. There is going to be a definition of a prohibited firearm, but it would only be on models moving forward.

Let me repeat that. I have listened, certainly tonight, to the Conservatives suggest that certain guns and hunting rifles would be banned. That is not the case. Any current model would not be touched by this prohibited firearm definition. That is extremely important, and it is not being recognized by the official opposition. I understand the members might have grievances and policy differences, but they should not frame this in a way that is not what is actually happening. That is extremely important.

The bill would also require firearms manufacturers to identify what the gun was actually designed for, moving forward. Therefore, either future models would have to conform to this definition or they would be prohibited in the country. That provides the certainty and clarity that gun manufacturers would like, and it would put an onus on them to identify that. Again, it is forward-looking. There is not one single aspect about a current long rifle in the market today. That is something that is not being stated enough here in this House.

The bill would establish a committee. I should say that this committee has already been established, as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford rightly pointed out earlier in the debate. It would now be re-established to advise on the existing models on the market with respect to any that it might deem should be prohibited. I want to make it very clear, though, that this is not just a committee that would put a list together and say what is prohibited. There would still be ministerial discretion involved. That is important. Moving forward, members of Parliament could actually engage the minister once the committee re-establishes and identify models.

That was part of the problem with the amendments in the long list; there were a few hunting rifles that were included. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety made it very clear that this was not the intent, but that was how it applied. Therefore, I am glad that the government went back and recalibrated this to get it right.

I want to say one thing with respect to the advisory committee. It is a good process. I want to make sure that my advice is on the record; this is that the committee has to comprise individuals who are independent and individuals who know the technical specifications of firearms in this country. I know that there are strong advocates for gun control in this country who have been touched by violence. In my respectful view, that is not the place where these individuals should be. It should also not be the place of special interest groups that want to drive the gun lobby. To the extent that the government is able, I would suggest that it should try to find individuals who are not actually driven by one ideological preference or another but can provide technical advice to the minister and allow the minister to have discretion. That, to me, is absolutely key. There have been challenges with the firearms advisory committee in the past, including groups resigning because of the contentiousness of putting disparate groups together. This has to be an independent process.

We all come to the table with our certain biases, but again, it is going to be extremely important for those who are named to that advisory committee to be able to provide that recommendation based on policy evidence and not on emotion on either side of this issue.

With the last five minutes, as I have here in my notes, let us cut through some of the Conservative BS. Now, I did not say the word, but I am sorry and will rephrase. Let us cut through some of the Conservative narrative. Hopefully that is okay. Hunting rifles are not being targeted. How many times have we stated that on hunting rifles?

I represent a riding where there are a lot of hunters, and I had a lot of people call me during the amendments. Again, I mentioned already in my speech the concern around the amendment process and the confusion it was causing. For example, we were telling people to look at the list to see if their gun was listed there and whether we were banning it. However, the way the actual legislation read at the time, and the amendments that were tabled, is that it would say “the following guns are banned or prohibited, except for” and then it would name about 15 pages worth of guns that were actually being exempted and not being prohibited. We would tell people, of course, to go the list, they would ctrl+f to find their gun, but they did not scroll up 15 pages to see that it was actually exempted, and there was a lot of confusion.

However, let me make it very clear that the Conservatives are not correct when they say that this bill is targeting hunting rifles in any which way. They have no right to say that. They can have frustration with handguns, thinking that maybe they should be completely open and legal, which is fine, just say that, but anything around the hunting rifles is a complete fallacy. The bill does not apply to current guns. We can get into the dynamic around the advisory committee. I just made very clear where I stand on that, and the importance of that committee having independence, but this legislation, outside of putting a freeze on handguns, does not apply to any long rifles whatsoever. That needs to be recognized by the official opposition. I hope that they are not going to drive a narrative out to their constituents that runs contrary to what this bill would actually do.

Members of the official opposition supported a number of elements in this bill. However, they seem not to recognize that the government is taking other initiatives above and beyond. I agree with them that this bill alone would not solve gun violence. We need measures at the border, we need to be able to enhance criminal penalties, as this government has done for those who are smuggling guns across the border, and we need to invest in social programs. Even that may not solve the issue completely, and so let us not have rose-coloured glasses coming into this situation. Again, Conservatives need to recognize that this government is doing more than just what is in this bill.

However, Conservatives may agree with certain elements of the bill, and they obviously voted in committee on a majority of it. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford might be able to weigh in on this as he was a member of that committee for a considerable amount of time. My understanding is that the Conservatives actually voted for quite a bit of what is in here, but we would not know that by the way they actually speak on the bill.

I have two minutes left, and let me say that the one concern, among others, such as the advisory committee and the importance of its independence, is sport shooting. I have a lot of sport shooters in my riding.

The former warden for the municipality of East Hants is a guy named Jim Smith, and we have had a number of conversations. He invited me to the IPSC national championship that took place near the Halifax Stanfield airport last year. I have seen them work and the way in which these individuals go about their craft, and how they represent their province, their country and their locality at shooting competitions. I explained at committee that I was concerned that this legislation did not have a provision for this.

The NDP did move an amendment for it, and I would have liked to have seen that adopted, but it was not. The Bloc had moved a motion about certification, saying that if there is an annual certification, high-competitive shooters would be exempted under the Shooting Federation of Canada. I think that definition, in a regulatory measure by this government, has to include an organization like IPSC, which is a federated body all around the world, and there are hundreds of countries. Countries like Australia have banned handguns, similar to what this government is doing, but it found a pathway to keep IPSC as an organization.

I will conclude by saying that we can appreciate that for individuals who go to shooting competitions internationally, if Air Canada loses their gun, there would be no recourse, which is one of the limitations of this bill. A lot of the bill I support, and I will sleep on it tonight, but this is something I wish the government had tackled.

I will continue to call for the government to address it in a regulatory measure in the days ahead because it is important to make sure, as the minister said, that we have a pathway to Olympic shooting. That should include organizations like IPSC, which are highly professional and regulated and have really important membership.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives have been receiving a very large number of concerns from constituents, not just in our constituencies but from across the country. We have been responding to their concerns.

Can the hon. member opposite ever deny that there is a vast number of Canadians who are concerned, are worried and do not trust what the government is doing with Bill C-21?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, there are certainly legal gun owners who have concerns. Any time we talk about a certain restriction on guns, some people may not like that policy. It may not be my hon. colleague opposite, but certainly his colleagues, because I have heard them, drive some of that narrative and that fear. Every time a Conservative stands and says the government is going after hunting rifles, people sitting at home who do not watch this place see a Facebook post or some type of graphic that goes out on social media. No wonder they are angry or scared. The opposition drives a narrative that is simply not the case.

If Conservatives stood and said they do not believe that handguns should be banned in this country, full stop, which they did today by voting that this should be walked back completely, that is fine. They can lead on that, but they should not lead on issues that are not true. That is what frustrates me. We should not get to a place where we drive narratives that are simply not true. My speech today reflected a reality of where I stand on this bill, where there are limitations and where there are problems. I did not try to sugar-coat it. However, members should stop driving stuff that is not true. That is the frustration in terms of what goes forward.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a second to thank the interpreters. I know that my speeches can be challenging for them sometimes and I want to take the time to thank them.

I thank my colleague for his speech. We sense that he did his work and reflected on Bill C‑21 very constructively. I would be curious to hear his thoughts on the bill's process.

Are there aspects that he was reticent about at some point? Are there amendments he would have wanted to move? Are there amendments that were moved that he applauds? Following the adoption at third reading, does he have confidence that the Senate will be able to respond quickly to pass Bill C‑21?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, normally I would love to engage in French, but it is late and I want to make sure that I am proper in my mother tongue.

There was one amendment that I wish we would have seen the government move on. The government position at committee was against what Mr. Julian moved in terms of allowing IPSC to be named. Maybe there is a more artful way to do this in the days ahead to make sure that competitive sport-shooting organizations like IPSC can qualify under the same type of Olympic program.

This bill, in the amendment process, has been cleaned up. That is thanks to the work, frankly, of all parliamentarians in this place, or certainly the two opposition parties that have collaborated to make sure this bill is good, along with the government and Liberal members. I do think there is a lot of good in this bill. My two concerns are that we need to make sure the advisory committee is as independent as possible in terms of the advice it provides to the government and that the government needs to find a regulatory pathway for sport shooters in the domain of IPSC.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I did not want to interrupt the hon. member while he was answering the question, but I will remind him not to say the name of the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member for Kings—Hants can be forgiven. It is getting rather late.

I appreciate how he used his 20 minutes tonight. I think he approached this discussion from a very honest place, reflecting on his personal views and the views of his constituents. He is the chair of the agriculture committee, and I enjoy a good working relationship with him.

When this bill was going through clause-by-clause, it was a real pleasure for me to tune in to see the member for Kings—Hants voicing vociferous support for our amendment to the bill that was going to expand it to allow for IPSC. I congratulate him for taking that stand. I have had exchanges in this chamber on that with the member for Outremont, who took me a peg lower because I dared to publicly support that. We know from IPSC shooters, and I have gone to competitions, that some of the top-level athletes in that field can shoot 50,000 rounds of ammunition every single year. That leads to their firearms breaking down, and they need replacing.

Can he expand on how we need to be a bit more reasonable in this place in understanding that, while not everyone might like the same hobby, we should at least try to find a way to respect something that so many people put so many hours into practising. They try to perfect their craft and are simply asking for their sport, which is something they really enjoy doing, to be left alone.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague across the way. I agree with him that we have a great working relationship, and I think he is one of the more astute members in this House in terms of his interventions.

I completely agree. As I highlighted in my speech, this is one of the failings of the bill. There is a lot that is good about it that makes me feel a conviction to want to support it moving forward. The IPSC and competitive sport shooters part under the handgun piece is what I have a challenge with.

I want to address his comments about the NDP amendment that was brought forward. I was a sub-in on the committee. The government's position, of course, was to be against it. I was put in a difficult situation of subbing in at a moment when I would have really liked to support it. Out of respect for the government position, because it would not have normally been me on the committee, I abstained and the amendment was passed by the chair.

To Tracey Wilson and some of the firearms lobby, I ruined the IPSC part, but it would have been defeated six to five had I not been there. At least we had an ability to take it to the chair. There is probably no love lost, but I still think there is an ability, in the days ahead, for the government to get this right in a regulatory measure.

I mentioned that the Bloc passed an amendment that talked about annual certification. IPSC certifies on an annual basis. It makes sure that its members are participating and are involved. That could be an opportunity for the government to find a way to include this organization. We do not want to open the tent super wide, but I think in this case it is justified and it should be something the government is looking at in the days ahead.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to acknowledge my colleague's concern with some of the items in this bill. I know he is concerned about the 32% increase in violent crime and gang-related murders, which have doubled. I am optimistic that he will sleep on this tonight and take a look at it, and that his comments are genuine. He may be able to see improvements, but I do not know if he can put amendments forward to do that at this stage.

I would like him to comment on what I mentioned earlier: the increase in violent crimes and gang-related murders. Many in the industry are saying that this bill is not going to be the answer to solving and lowering those crime rates. Can he expand on that?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the hon. member's interventions. He is a reasonable colleague and we need more level-headedness in this place.

I will say two things. I agree that this legislation, this proposal alone, is not going to solve gun violence. It is not going to solve violence in our communities. Solving it is going to take a more nuanced approach than that. It is going to take additional measures at the border, which the government has been working on and needs to continue to do. It is going to take investment in mental health. It is going to take investment in communal programs and social initiatives to make sure that individuals who might be lured into a life of crime have the opportunity to be engaged.

I would agree with him that this bill alone does not solve that issue. I know he may have certain challenges about the provisions in the bill. There is some contention, and I have wrestled with that tonight.

On the amendments, I want to register something, as I never had the chance to do it during my remarks. As I went through each of the amendments that were brought forward, I was concerned when the Conservative Party tried to move an amendment today that would have walked back the exemption on Olympic sport shooters. It was moved by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. The Conservatives voted for it. I do not know why they voted for it, because that would have taken away the small exemption that does exist for sport shooting now, which I think should be expanded. Hopefully, some of the Conservatives can address that in their comments later this evening.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, hunting season is over. That is what a lot of Canadians are hearing tonight. I am trying to give them comfort and understanding of what has transpired in the months on this bill and why the Liberals, supported by the NDP, are going after Grandpa Joe's hunting gun.

This is one of the most frustrating parts of the job, of being a member of Parliament. It is almost midnight. There is no reason for us to be up this late. We were up last night debating this as well. It is the mismanagement and incompetence of the Liberal government, which is why we are having to debate this late in the evening. There are real problems with the bill and it is just ramming it through.

I will try to walk us through why and some of the ways that it is going after Grandpa Joe's hunting rifles.

It is really because, eight years ago, when the Prime Minister got to Ottawa, he started changing things within our country, changing some of the fundamental principles of our justice system. The corresponding result was an increase in violent crimes of 32%. My heart goes out to family members who have lost a loved one due to violence. We know that gang-related murders have doubled under the watch of the Prime Minister. Instead of going after real criminals, he is going after Grandpa Joe.

Grandpa Joe might be in Newfoundland. He has enjoyed hunting moose for generations and is fearful of the next generation's inability to carry on a very important part of our heritage and our traditions in this country, because of the changes.

Common sense would dictate that, if we have a problem, we could ask where the problem is coming from. Once one has identified where it was coming from, that is where one should put one's efforts into stopping it, and we all want to stop violent criminals. I believe everyone, at heart, when they say they would like to stop the crime rates that continue to increase. This bill would do nothing for that because 90% of all firearms-related crimes are done with an illegal firearm.

Criminals do not follow the law. We know this. We know that the statistics out of British Columbia earlier this year showed that 40 criminals have been arrested 6,000 times. It is the catch-and-release bail policies that have been introduced by the government over the last eight years, which are driving this up.

We catch and release. We catch and release. Go out, commit a violent crime, get arrested and get released. That is the policy that has driven this spike in violent crime, up 32%, under the Prime Minister's watch.

Where does he decide to spend millions, if not billions, of dollars? Going after Grandpa Joe's firearms. It is wrong. Instead of going after illegal gun smugglers and criminals, they are going after the hunting rifles and shotguns of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people. That is where they are going to be spending the money.

I do want to remind everyone that I will be splitting my time with the member for Fundy Royal.

While I have the floor, I just want to walk through the common-sense understanding of the problem and what we can do to fix it.

The Liberals have, in every way possible, made it easier for these criminals. There used to be minimum sentences. In Bill C-5, they repealed mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. Why would they do that?

We know these people cannot help themselves. These individuals need to be behind bars and in programs to straighten out their lives, but instead, they are getting lighter sentences because of Bill C-5. There are no minimums.

The Liberals like to make a lot of noise about how they are going to increase the maximums. There are no judges in Canada who hand out maximums anymore. That is the higher threshold that should be there, but they have bumped it up to a point where it does not have an impact. We are talking about criminals who are getting firearms across the border and, for the most part, committing the crimes that are concerning families in some of our larger cities. My heart goes out to them because losing a loved one for no reason is a heinous thing to think about. A lot of times these are senseless, unprovoked crimes using firearms coming over from the United States. We have a government that will not even shut down the illegal crossing of people, let alone firearms.

A much more common-sense approach to deal with this problem would be to go after the individuals who are committing the crimes and the firearms that enable those crimes, 90% of which are coming here illegally, but with all these laws on the books, the only ones who are going to be affected are the law-abiding hunters and indigenous people of this land.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, was the point that, if criminals do not follow laws, we should therefore not have laws?

That aside, the hon. member was sitting while he is speaking. Our traditions are that we stand when we address the House. I do not know what the rules are with respect to sitting down—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Agreed. It is the rule to stand while we speak in the House, which is why we say, “While I stand in the House”.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out how common-sense has left this place.

We are almost at midnight. I am leaning on my desk. The member comes rushing down here to raise a point of order that members cannot lean on their desk at a quarter to midnight because they could potentially be sitting. This is the lack of common sense that usually comes from the member and his party.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, on a point of order, it is bizarre that the hon. member is talking about following the rules, but said the rules do not apply in the last 15 minutes while the House is sitting. I find that surprising, so I was just wondering—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are getting into debate now, so I would ask the hon. member to conclude his speech.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University has the floor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have the floor, and I am standing. I think that highlights the Liberal philosophy quite well. The common sense is lacking.

The common people of this country know what this bill does. This bill goes after hunting rifles that have been used safely across Canada. This is a frustration of Canadians. I am sure they are calling other members' offices. They are calling my office. I am meeting with people.

Conservatives do not support the confiscation of other people's property. This is what this bill would ultimately do. There is the Liberal firearms advisory committee that would do what the Liberals wanted to do with earlier amendments. It is clear that this panel would do the bidding of the Liberal government. We have seen this time after time. The Liberals try to do things through the front door, and if that does not work, they go through the back door. This is how they are bringing it in.

The Liberals are saying there are no firearms that would be banned by this legislation. However, it would appoint the Liberal firearms advisory committee. Who appoints it? It is the order in council. I wonder who they might put on that. Would that be a panel of experts who view the world how the Liberals view it? I wonder. A special rapporteur would figure this out, I am sure.

There is a whole bunch of things that could be improved in this bill. Obviously, with our track record in this country on violent crimes, we are on the wrong path. We need to fix the justice system. We need to have jail not bail. We need to have common-sense rules that govern our country. We will never have that until we defeat the Liberal-NDP coalition and get common sense back in this country.

I am fearful of the consequences if we continue down this path with individuals who pretend to have the best interests of the country at heart, but when flawed legislation such as this is brought forward, it brings up questions. If Liberals really want to lower crime, why are they going after Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle? There is no good answer. This is virtue signalling from the Liberals that they are somehow going to tackle violent crime by going after Grandpa Joe.

We know that it will not work. What is really frustrating is that we need sensible measures that get the criminals off the streets.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are going off on a completely ridiculous tangent right now.

My hon. colleague talked about the firearms advisory committee. I would ask him to find where, in Bill C-21, that is mentioned. I will give him a hint. It is not there. He should take a look at the public safety website because he would see that the firearms advisory committee is a body that already exists.

At the risk of repeating myself for the nth time today and yesterday, I would challenge my hon. colleague to name one rifle or one shotgun that is in this bill that would be prohibited. I ask the member to give me one model, unlike all of his colleagues before him.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is the NDP. Its members just trust the Liberals. If people who are watching at home want a Liberal MP, then could vote NDP and get the same thing. The NDP are just going to prop up the Liberals.

They are asking, “What firearms will the committee ban?” We know in the amendments they wanted the Winchester model 100, Winchester model 1910, Ruger Deerfield carbine, Remington 740, Remington 7400 and the Remington model 4.

This is just a small fraction of what the Liberals have wanted to ban. We know that is their intent because we have seen the amendments they slipped up on. They thought they could get something through on an amendment. We know exactly what they are going to ban, and they would ban them in the months to come.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that there was 40 people arrested 6,000 times. I googled it.

According to the Vancouver Sun, it was actually 40 people who had 6,300 incidents, and most of these people are people with mental health and substance abuse challenges. These are not arrests. These are incidents. Could the member please correct the record?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is the common-sense Liberal. They say that these were not arrests; these were just incidents. They were individuals who were not following the law, and they will never follow the law until we get the bail and jail systems figured out. We need more jail, not bail, and as people are put in jail, they will not be committing crimes. This is the common-sense approach that needs to be done. We need to identify who is committing the crimes and fix the system so that they get the help they need, and if these individuals are having mental health troubles, I will bet they are addiction-related.

What happened in British Columbia? It just legalized hard-core drugs. Those drugs lead to addictions, which lead to more criminal activity.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it so troubling that the coalition of the Liberals and the NDP seems to be bent on bringing American-style politics into the conversation, yet what I find really interesting is that they actually invited a former presidential candidate who supports the second amendment in the United States.

They say one thing but do another on so many fronts. Could the member for Saskatoon—University highlight other examples of the hypocrisy we see in the Liberals, as well as the NDP?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, the list of hypocritical things I have witnessed since getting out here is too long to mention in one sitting. I could probably do a 20-minute speech with rebuttals on how hypocritical they are. The different—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Now they heckle me, Madam Speaker.

[An hon. member]

We've been heckling the whole time.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think the most hypocritical thing I have seen with the Liberals is in the bill before us, where they target law-abiding firearms owners instead of the criminals who are committing the crimes. They cry for the victims, and we should all cry for families when they have faced criminal activities that have robbed them of their loved ones. However, we should understand that their efforts are going after the wrong people out there.

Grandpa Joe's firearm is not what is shooting up downtown Vancouver and Toronto.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to close out debate this evening on Bill C-21, and it is an honour, as always, to stand in this House and represent the constituents from the great riding of Fundy Royal who elected me. Many of those constituents enjoy hunting, farming and sport shooting and maybe have inherited a firearm from a relative. Hunting in my riding certainly is something many people like to partake in and enjoy.

What is the problem we are trying to go after? It is gun violence. What the facts tell us is that 80% of the firearms used in violent crime are illegal. What are some of the figures? Violent crime is up 32% in Canada in the last eight years. Gang-related violent crime, the stuff Canadians are talking about, seeing in the news and hearing about in their local newspaper, is up almost 100% in the last eight years. What about crimes that are committed with firearms? Eighty per cent of the firearms used in violent crime are obtained illegally. We have an illegal firearms problem in Canada.

What is the solution when we have an illegal firearms problem? We should go after the illegal firearms. The last thing we should do is spend valuable resources going after law-abiding, licensed firearms owners in this country. However, we should not be surprised that this is the approach the government took. We have to remember this is the same Liberal government that brought in Bill C-68, or the long gun registry, and that spent, according to the Auditor General, over $1 billion registering the firearms of law-abiding Canadians while having no impact on crime.

It is the same government that brought in Bill C-5. What did Bill C-5 do? I mentioned that we have a problem with illegal firearms. Bill C-5, which was introduced and passed under the current government, repealed mandatory prison penalties for many firearms offences. They include robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking. These are the types of offences that Canadians would expect someone convicted to go to jail for. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 removed mandatary jail sentences for those crimes, so we are not going after the illegal guns and we are not going after the criminals.

The figures should get the attention of all members, no matter what side of the aisle they are on. In Toronto alone, one half of murder suspects this year are out on some type of release. In 17 of 44 homicides in Toronto last year, the individual was out on bail. We have a major problem in this country when it comes to gang-related violence and firearms violence with the revolving door, the catch-and-release, of our bail system.

The government had an opportunity with this bill to tackle some of those things. Instead, what it did is went after everyday, law-abiding Canadians, the type of Canadians I represent in my riding of Fundy Royal.

As parliamentarians, we need to take the issues that confront us in this country seriously. This bill does not do that. The government showed its hand when it brought it an amendment that would have banned all kinds of hunting rifles, rifles that have been in families for generations. These are not the problem. Law-abiding Canadians are not the problem. Licensed firearms owners are not the problem. Spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to buy back and confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens is not the solution.

When this bill is fully implemented, Canadians will not be one bit safer. Until we have the courage to tackle the revolving door of catch-and-release bail and until we have the courage to say that those who do serious crimes are going to get a jail sentence, we will continue to have these problems in Canada. We need to leave law-abiding people alone and go after the bad guys, and that is what the Conservatives will do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 11:59 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 9, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division on the amendment stands deferred until Thursday, May 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 12:01 a.m., the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 21(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:01 a.m.)

The House resumed from May 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-21.

The question is on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #332

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member of a recognized party in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #333

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)