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.

Public Safety and National Security

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we still have work to do to finish what we started.

However, I would have liked the Bloc Québécois to stay strong when things got a little tough in committee. When we debated Bill C-21, the Bloc Québécois remained oddly silent, although we would have liked them to support the amendments we brought forward at the time.

I hope to be able to work with the Bloc Québécois and PolyRemembers. I heard that a meeting finally took place between the Bloc Québécois leader and PolyRemembers just today. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the way I see things right now, they are not walking the talk. Let me explain. My colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia gave a speech earlier explaining all the work that has been done by the Standing Committee on Public Safety on the issue of better gun control and on Bill C-21. One problem with the buyback program is the definition issue.

My colleague clearly explained that there is something that is crucial. I will also address this issue when PolyRemembers appears before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women next week for a study on femicide. The Standing Committee on Public Safety made a rather important recommendation about enlisting a committee of independent experts to provide a more informed opinion to clearly define and determine which firearms should be prohibited and which are indeed used for hunting only. This will require people who are truly independent. My colleague has been waiting for such a committee to be set up for over a year and a half. She even sent the Minister of Public Safety some names of people who could join it. This is important. Right now, things are stuck and this definition is one of the reasons.

Can we get moving and take action?

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

Madam Speaker, it is pretty simple. The government's next move appears to be implementing a buyback program for banned firearms. That is what we have been asking for, but it is a half measure insofar as there are still assault-style firearms circulating on the market that can do the same things as those on the banned weapons list. We need to get the job done right.

It is easy. The government has the ability to implement regulations banning these weapons. That should happen before a buyback program is put in place. I would not be surprised if that is what PolyRemembers asks for at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It is one of their main demands. This week, its members spoke with the mayor of Montreal, Valérie Plante, who is once again asking that the government implement the recommendations and regulations tied to Bill C‑21.

I would say that is the most pressing point.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to talk about this issue, although we discussed the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's report years ago. It was when the Bloc Québécois proposed to discuss the increase in gun violence. At the time, gun crimes were being committed in broad daylight next to day care centres in cities like Montreal. There had been a shooting in a library. In short, a lot of events led us to determine that we needed to talk about the issue with some urgency. The parties worked really well together to have the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security conduct a study on the matter.

We then did an exhaustive study in committee, and a report containing 34 recommendations was released in April 2022. That was a few years ago, when the Hon. Jim Carr was chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We salute him. We miss him. All that to say that, rereading the various recommendations this morning, I was disappointed to realize that most of them, although the report was published in 2022 and a major firearms act has since been passed, were never implemented by the government. That is really too bad.

I welcome the opportunity that we have today to once again talk about the Conservatives' idea, because it still seems to be a hot topic. There has not been much of a decline in violent gun crime in recent years, at least not since this report was tabled, so it is a good idea to talk more about this issue and to put more pressure on the government to do something about it.

Earlier, I mentioned to the parliamentary secretary that Bill C-21 was indeed a step in the right direction, but that there are a lot of regulations attached to it that have not yet been finalized, even though these are important regulations that could have a positive impact on people's lives, especially the lives of women who are victims of domestic violence. Red flag and yellow flag provisions can provide better protection for these women. It is important to put these measures in pace. We worked hard in committee to create these measures, but they have not yet been implemented.

It is the same thing with all these models of firearms that are still available on the market. People still own assault-type firearms, and they are still in circulation, even though the government banned many of them a few years ago. Some models are extremely similar. As I was saying to my colleague earlier, it does not make sense to me to set up a gun buyback program when people who own a gun on the banned list can hand it over to the government, take the money in return and go out and buy another gun that is basically the same. Why set up a buyback program if that is what is going to happen?

Let us go with a complete ban. Let us sort out the guns that could be used for hunting, because some of the firearms that we identified during the study of Bill C‑21 might be used for hunting. What we proposed to the government at the time was to set up an advisory committee. Why should this be a political decision? We suggested leaving it to neutral experts from all fields to study the matter. We were talking about nearly 500 models that are still out there, and maybe a dozen models that could be used for hunting. We were saying that we should ask these experts to provide recommendations to the government so that the government could then act on them, and that this would then be an opportunity to set up a more serious buyback program instead of taking taxpayers' money just to allow someone to go out and buy a different model.

I will come back to this in more detail, but I also want to talk about the list of 34 recommendations adopted in April 2022. I have to say that we worked well together in committee, and it is quite rare to get unanimity on any topic at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

It was nice to see all the parties agree that the government should do more to make progress on the firearms violence file. The committee made very good recommendations. I will mention a few of them.

In particular, we wanted to improve data collection about firearms smuggling. This is a very big report. It discusses legislative changes concerning assault-type weapons, as well as illegal firearms trafficking at the border. In particular, it mentions the border crossing at Akwesasne and the collaborative efforts between the various police forces. It also deals extensively with the tracing of firearms and the training of law enforcement officials in this area. In particular, it recommends ongoing training for RCMP officers. Many of the recommendations in the report relate to tracing.

We wanted the Government of Canada to make an effort to divert young people away from gang culture. That is very important. We need to implement preventive measures to reach young people, often from disadvantaged communities, who might be attracted by criminal gangs and commit crimes. It is all related. When we talk about firearms trafficking, about gun violence, we can assume that it is related to drug trafficking, human trafficking or even auto theft. We also discussed that aspect extensively. These are criminal activities that finance other criminal activities, including firearms trafficking. We asked the government to do more to prevent this type of criminal activity. In particular, we asked the government to broaden the national crime prevention strategy by adding more measures. We also asked that it hold a national gun and gang summit in Ottawa. That has not happened, despite the fact that it was recommended in 2022.

Take auto theft, for example. A few months ago, when I raised the issue in the House of Commons, the Conservatives were on board because it is a widespread phenomenon, particularly in Montreal and Toronto. The government wanted to act quickly and launched a national summit on auto theft, which appears to have yielded results. I visited the port of Montreal and the Canada Border Services Agency site nearby. We saw that the police, Équité Association and the Canada Border Services Agency were working together to search containers. We saw how it all works.

Sometimes when we raise issues in the House of Commons, we think it might have an impact on real life. It is interesting. I figure that, if it works for auto theft, why would it not work for gun violence and gangs? A national summit is always a timely idea, and it allows everyone to sit at the same table and talk about what to do next. That is still a useful recommendation that can be implemented any time with little expense. It is always good to establish communication between all the stakeholders.

We also asked the government to tackle the illegal drug trade. As I said earlier, there is still a connection to the opioid epidemic, which leads to things like gun violence and illegal tobacco sales. All these things are related. It is important to bulk up police resources to fight gang violence. People often talk about how important it is to have more officers who can do this work. It is the same with indigenous policing. I talked about the Akwesasne police earlier.

Indigenous police services have been seeking recognition as essential services for years now. They want more resources so they can do their job. I am not targeting that particular indigenous nation at all, but everyone knows this is a very strategic location between Quebec, Ontario and the United States where there is a lot of trafficking. Many people can intervene in that territory, but they have to work together, and they have to work with the Akwesasne police. The report called for enhanced funding and collaboration. Simply put, it called on the Government of Canada to give them the means to achieve their objective of taking action against trafficking in guns, drugs, tobacco and humans.

We see it with migrants who try to come in as part of an irregular arrival. Some have died trying to cross at this very spot. Increased control is really key.

The government was asked to “investigate the need for enhanced border surveillance of international commercial rail operations and ocean freight shipping operations.” The Bloc Québécois produced a supplementary report to this study. Our recommendation was to improve recommendation 19, by pointing out that it is not just a matter of investigating the need, which is quite broad, but rather of strengthening border surveillance.

Many, many, witnesses appeared before the committee. Several of them, including the president of the Customs and Immigration Union, told us that containers arriving by rail and ship are very poorly monitored. If someone can hide cars in there, they can certainly hide firearms. That is why there must be increased surveillance. We asked for that recommendation to be tightened up a little. That is why we included it in the Bloc Québécois supplementary report.

Recommendation 20 called on the government to “allocate additional human and financial resources to the Canada Border Services Agency”. It is a bit ironic, then, to see that hours of service are being reduced at 35 border crossings in Canada, including 10 in Quebec. The media reported it this week. Meanwhile, the President-elect of the United States, Mr. Trump, is threatening to deport millions of people. Understandably, these people may try to cross irregularly into Canada, because there is a loophole in the safe third country agreement that allows them to come to Canada. If they remain undetected for 14 days, they can make a refugee claim at a border crossing or on the Government of Canada's website, with a perfectly regular application.

In other words, people are being encouraged to break the law, enter Canada illegally and then submit a perfectly legal application to remain in Canada. Meanwhile, our integration capacity is already stretched to the limit. That is definitely the case in Quebec, and we are starting to hear other provinces say that it is getting difficult for them to properly receive these individuals as well.

We are telling the government that it needs to pay attention. We are hearing reports that the next U.S. government intends to deport millions of people, but we have no plan for the border. For years, we have been saying that there needs to be more staff, more human resources, but now the government is saying that it is going to reduce operating hours and staff numbers at certain border crossings, including strategic crossings at the Canada-U.S. border. It worries us a bit to hear that.

This morning, I had a meeting with the Minister of Public Safety and I raised this issue with him. If the staff are being reassigned, where are they going? Is the government planning to deploy them to another part of the border to prevent this scenario? I asked the minister that question in the House several times, and he said that everything was going well for now and that when a crisis does arise, it will be dealt with then. That is the problem with this government. Instead of anticipating problems and crises, it waits until the problem blows up in its face before taking action. It is always just a little too late. That is too bad. As far back as April 2022, when it released this report, the committee was already recommending that additional resources be allocated to the Canada Border Services Agency. That still has not been done. In any case, that is what the Customs and Immigration Union is telling us.

Recommendation 22 calls on the government to “develop a standardized schedule and definitions of prohibited firearms within the Criminal Code of Canada, with an emphasis on simplicity and consistency”.

The government decided to do the exact opposite with Bill C-21 by proposing an evergreen definition of prohibited firearms. It is difficult to explain what that means in lay terms, but it basically means that the government is prohibiting firearms that do not yet exist. Those that are already in circulation can remain in circulation, but new firearms that are created will be prohibited. As a result, manufacturers are deciding not to create firearms that meet those criteria. They are already getting around the law. In my opinion, this shows that the government's approach did not do much good.

We were forced to adopt that proposal because the previous one was even worse. The government proposed adding a list of just over 1,000 firearms to the Criminal Code. With an endless list of firearms, making changes to the Criminal Code would have been a total nightmare. Although there does not seem to be one perfect solution, that one was far from ideal. As I was saying, firearms that can be extremely dangerous, that can be used for malicious purposes, are being left in circulation.

We know there are law-abiding people out there. That needs to be said. For years, there have been gun owners who have done everything that was asked of them and who take good care of their firearms. They are not a problem for society. We always hear the argument that it is the illegal guns, criminals and street gangs that cause trouble, but the honest gun owners who pay the price. That said, when someone chooses to own a firearm, they have to be aware that there are regulations around gun ownership and that they have to be careful.

That is why I think it is always good to have regulations and laws for people who decide to keep an object in their home that is capable of taking someone's life. However, it is true that it may seem contradictory to leave the door open for criminals and gun traffickers and always go after law-abiding gun owners.

The government's approach was to lump them all together. Even though some of these weapons were used for hunting, the government included them in its bill to ban them. People told the committee that indigenous communities have used firearms like the SKS for hunting for years. Even though mass murders have been committed with SKS rifles, it does not necessarily follow that this weapon should be banned. That is why we asked the government to create an advisory committee with independent experts.

I remember that when I got home after Parliament rose in June 2023, I wrote an email to the Minister of Public Safety's team to recommend individuals and experts who could be part of the advisory committee. I was told that it was coming and that they would take my suggestions, so I was hoping it would come soon, but it has been radio silence since then. It has been a little over a year.

Members will recall that there was a cabinet shuffle about a month later, in July 2023. I understand that this can lead to delays, but nothing has happened to this day. Some groups are still sounding the alarm. In fact, I am meeting with PolyRemembers later today, and they say that they have only received half of all the things they were promised.

I want to come back to the infamous gun buyback program. It is a good idea, but if a person can sell their gun to the government and then buy another one that does exactly the same thing, the whole exercise was pointless, and taxpayers' money was spent for nothing. There is still a lot that needs to be done.

Earlier this week, the Police Association of Ontario wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice. The leader of the Bloc Québécois received a copy. The letter mentions that a significant number of illegal guns are making their way into Canada. We need to look into that. So many gun-related issues remain to be addressed.

I like the new Minister of Public Safety. I trust him. The two of us have good conversations, but since he took office, it seems like things are not getting done. It is too bad, because we, the opposition, did our part in the parliamentary legislative process. Whatever we could do, we did. Now the ball is in the government's court. Addressing this issue will require regulatory measures that only the government can take, but the government is not budging. That is too bad, because the government was elected and re-elected on the promise of improving gun control. Soon it could lose power, and the issue will remain unresolved. It is too bad for the people who believed its promise, like women of PolyRemembers, who have been fighting for nearly 35 years now. They will not get to see these much-touted regulations take effect. It really is too bad.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. She is someone I have had the privilege of working closely with on this issue. I know we would not have been able to do what we have done on gun control without her support and assistance.

I want to assure the member that all of the things she mentioned remain a priority for the government. I continue to push the government to get these regulations put in place as quickly as possible and to ensure we are moving forward on all of the things we promised in Bill C-21.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I worked very hard on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to make Bill C-21 a good bill.

This bill had a huge number of regulatory measures that were to come later, and we placed out trust in the government when we passed it. We hoped that the government would quickly adopt the regulations needed to make the bill strict enough. Unfortunately, that is not really what happened.

We passed the bill and are still awaiting several regulations, namely those that could protect women against domestic violence, as well as those relating to the assault-type weapons still on the market, which can still be found in homes and in the streets.

The government wants to move forward with the firearms buyback program. However, it is easy for a citizen with a prohibited weapon to sell it to the government, take the money and go buy another one. Why is it that there is still no advisory committee in place to determine what to do with these weapons?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to contribute to this debate on the concurrence of a guns and gangs study that I was pleased to be part of at the public safety committee.

I am reflecting back on how, since just two years ago, times have changed. That study, which was on something that could have been quite controversial, ended up being one for which we had agreement amongst the members of the committee. We produced a report that the Conservatives actually agreed with when we tabled the report.

I find it surprising now that, here we are, two years later, and we have rhetoric and nonsense coming from the Conservative Party of Canada on a report that I am really proud of. At the time, I think that all of the members were very proud of it, especially of the way we were able to come together on an issue that is impacting our communities. Young people are joining gangs because of poverty and addiction. We know, and the report reflected this, that investments in communities can make a difference for these young people in whether or not they end up in the criminal justice system.

I am really disappointed that, once again, the Conservatives are trying to derail our current studies at the public safety committee. We are studying India and foreign interference, through which a Canadian was killed on Canadian soil, as well as Tenet Media and Russia's influence on misinformation in our country. This is something the Conservatives have tried to do repeatedly during both those studies. Today, they are trying to derail those two studies again. Twice we have had Conservatives move motions, once when we had the social media companies in to testify on Russia and once when we had national security experts there, and they were moving motions on completely unrelated topics.

These are issues that are impacting Canadians' lives. It seems like the Conservatives, much like their leader, who refuses to get the security clearance necessary to review, do not really want to study foreign interference. They make a big deal about having an interest in it, but they really do not.

There is a lot of revisionist thinking going on in this place as well. Bill C-83 passed, and I was proud to be part of the committee when we passed that bill, but the Conservatives keep referring to how the Liberal government brought in the least restrictive measures. It is funny that, when that bill went through committee, Conservatives did not oppose that clause, which was introduced by the NDP. Conservatives did not oppose the least restrictive clause on Bill C-83 when it went through committee.

However, now, with the revisionist history that has happened over the years, the Conservatives seem to think that they did. Perhaps they want to go back to just check the record of when that bill passed.

I am reading a book right now called Indictment by Benjamin Perrin. He was the man who shaped Stephen Harper's tough on crime policies as a special adviser and legal counsel to the prime minister. I want to read a quote from his book. He said, “In fact, I’d like to officially replace the term ‘tough on crime’ with ‘stupid on crime.’ It doesn't work. It makes us less safe, while costing a ton of taxpayers money.” To paraphrase former prime minister Harper's top guy on crime, he is saying tough on crime is tough on taxpayers and stupid on crime.

The Conservatives like to talk about how they want to keep Canadians safe, yet, time and time again, they have opposed smart gun control measures when we have brought them through the House. In Bill C-71, there was a clause that ensured that firearms would be forfeited to the Crown in cases of domestic violence.

I had a friend whose husband was abusing her, and he was a firearms owner. When she went to court, the judge said that he had to give up his guns. Do members know where those guns went? They went to his brother because there was no requirement at the time that those guns be forfeited to the Crown. My friend lived in fear because she knew that her husband knew where those guns were. We changed that through Bill C-71, something the Conservatives have said they are going to repeal. If my friend were to go to court today, those guns would go to the Crown, not to her husband's brother.

In Bill C-21, we put in three clauses to make women safer: subsection 6.1, which would make an individual ineligible to hold a firearms licence if they are subject to a protection order or have been convicted of an offence involving violence; subsection 70.1, which would oblige a chief firearms officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a licensee may have engaged in domestic violence or stalking to revoke the licence within 24 hours; and subsection 70.2, which would automatically revoke the licence of an individual who becomes subject to a protection order and requires them to deliver the guns to a peace officer within 24 hours.

In my opinion, that keeps Canadian women safer. It is unfortunate that the party opposite wants to revoke Bill C-21, which includes those provisions. It also includes provisions around assault-style weapons, something that was used at Polytechnique Montréal, and that anniversary is coming up on December 6. The Conservative Party still refuses to acknowledge that the individual who killed those women on that day was a legal gun owner at the time, much like the person who went into the Quebec City mosque and killed and injured people.

When we were studying Bill C-21, Blaine Calkins showed up in committee. Sorry, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe—

Public Safety

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I listen to the police all the time.

They tell me that when guns are taken out of circulation, it helps keep things like gender-based violence and domestic violence from occurring. Women are getting killed because guns are in homes. When we pass a bill like Bill C-21, we disable that from happening and ensure that we are keeping women in this country safe. That is a priority or should be a priority for the entire Parliament. It is just really shocking that that member does not get it.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑20 is the second bill that I had the chance to work on at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security since I first joined it in 2020. First there was Bill C‑21, which we talked about a lot here, then there was Bill C‑20.

Many people have talked about the timing of the study of this bill. It has been a long process. The bill was introduced in the House on May 19, 2022, more than two years ago. As some colleagues mentioned, before Bill C‑20, there was Bill C‑3 during the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C‑98 during the 42nd Parliament. Both of those bills died on the Order Paper simply because the government chose not to prioritize them.

That is basically what happened with Bill C‑20 as well. It took a very long time to get to second reading in November 2022, six months after the bill was first introduced. The bill was then referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where, once again, it took a very long time, another six months, before it could be studied. The government obviously bears some responsibility for these long delays, but the Conservatives also played their favourite game in parliamentary committee, specifically slowing down the work under the pretext of having another priority. There are always other priorities.

The study of Bill C‑20 was therefore delayed by many hours. In fact, we lost several meetings over several weeks. The committee was finally able to begin its study before the summer, so members could hear from the minister, public servants and various witnesses. However, right when the committee was about to begin clause-by-clause consideration, it suspended its work for the summer. When the committee returned in the fall, the same thing happened and parliamentary business was delayed for various reasons. It was not until six months later that the bill came back to the House of Commons, which brings us to third reading today.

I am going over these events to show those who might be following our work that the process of studying and amending a bill can be long and sometimes arduous.

That said, the Bloc Québécois still managed to help improve this bill, and that is what I am going to talk about this evening.

It is worth noting that there is still no external review commission to address public complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency. There is one for the RCMP, but not for the CBSA, which is the only federal security organization that does not yet have a review commission associated with it. However, 20 years ago, Justice O'Connor recommended that an independent process be created to handle public complaints against the CBSA. This issue dates back to 2004.

Bill C‑20 finally corrects this situation. Victims of the CBSA, and they do exist, have been waiting for this bill. As with any organization, abuses of power can happen, and some people have indeed been the victims of such abuses. They have been contacting us and asking to meet with us ever since the bill was introduced two years ago. They want to help us improve the bill. For them, the process has been very long, and I salute them today. As my colleague mentioned earlier, it is a little ironic that this evening's debate is subject to time allocation, as if time is suddenly running out. However, I do hope that we will see the process through to a successful conclusion and pass this bill quickly.

As we know, the CBSA has certain powers. These powers are fairly significant, such as the power to detain and search Canadians or deport people. Cases of misconduct have been reported in recent years. One that comes to mind is the case of Maher Arar, a dual Syrian and Canadian citizen who was arrested during a layover in New York City on his way back to Canada. I have talked about him in this place before.

In January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found significant flaws concerning searches of travellers' electronic devices. Documents released around 2017 or 2018 mentioned complaints about racist or rude comments about clients or travellers. They also noted allegations of sexual misconduct. I would remind the House that the number of investigations into misconduct by border officers increased during the pandemic even though the number of international trips had decreased. The misconduct primarily involved giving preferential treatment or showing disrespect toward clients by making inappropriate comments about people, as I was saying. Other border services officers abused their authority and shared private information about the CBSA.

It is not just Canadians and travellers from this country who can be victims of the CBSA. Immigrants and refugees can also be targeted. The Canadian Council for Refugees came to committee to share what it would like to see improved in this bill. It should be noted that people who do not have permanent status in Canada are often extremely reluctant to file a complaint because they fear that it will be used against them and might hurt their chances.

When something goes wrong during a person's removal, it can be difficult for the person to lodge a complaint and go through the process, as it can sometimes be complicated given that they are outside the country. That is why the Canadian Council for Refugees told us that it would be good if organizations could bring forward third party complaints on behalf of people who, for various reasons, are unable to do so.

The government had not included this in the bill. That is why the Bloc Québécois tabled several amendments to this effect, which were fortunately adopted. Thanks to these amendments, third parties will be able to reviews of specified activities, file complaints and help citizens file complaints. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's additions, they will also be notified if there is a refusal to investigate and will be informed of the reasons for decisions. This is a major improvement over the original bill.

It is important to note that many people who are mistreated by the CBSA are unlikely to file a complaint, as I said, sometimes because their status is not secure or because they fear consequences or reprisals. It may also be because of language barriers or problems accessing a computer or the Internet. In short, non-governmental organizations, such as the Canadian Council for Refugees, are well placed to file complaints on behalf of individuals. Some individuals may simply prefer that the organization with which they have established a relationship of trust file the complaint on their behalf.

Also, given that organizations work in this field and obviously see quite a few situations of this nature, they are well placed to identify and act on problematic patterns. If they have several examples of the same situation, a complaint about a pattern of behaviour may be more viable than an individual complaint about one person. This way, they can provide stronger evidence that there is a problem. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois amendment, organizations will be able to act as third parties, which is extremely valuable.

Essentially, the bill creates the public complaints and review commission. It will be made up of civilians who are not former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. It was very important that this be included in the bill. However, there was nothing in the bill to say that the members of this commission should reflect the diversity of society. We therefore tabled an amendment to ensure that would be the case. It was actually a recommendation from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, which already exists and has experience in handling complaints. It said that it was important for the people who sit on the commission to reflect the diversity of society. The Bloc Québécois therefore got this amendment adopted.

Other changes were made. The proposed subsection requiring that the commission be satisfied that sufficient resources exist for conducting the review of a complaint has been removed. There were concerns that the underfunding of the organization would be used as an excuse to avoid reviews. Witnesses told the committee that underfunding is common. This clause was like a loophole in the bill that would allow the commission to refuse to deal with complaints. However, we are confident that the government will properly fund its organizations, including this new commission, and that the commission will not be able to hide behind this aspect in order to avoid handling complaints.

We also added the requirement that a copy of communications be sent to the complainant's legal representative, because that was not the case previously. If the victim was the only person who could file a complaint, there would be no legal representative involved. That part was therefore added, which was a request from the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association.

Some aspects pertaining to the refusal to investigate were changed thanks to amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois. We proposed allowing the commission some room to manoeuvre. Now it may refuse to deal with a complaint, instead of being forced to refuse to deal with it, if other recourse is available to the complainant. These are small adjustments, small additions, that may make a big difference for victims of the CBSA.

We hope that these people's voices will be heard, that their complaints will be addressed in the most neutral and objective way possible and that they will get justice. Obviously, we hope that this bill is passed quickly.

Public Safety

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to the table two petitions on behalf of my constituents in New Brunswick Southwest.

The first petition is concerning the rising rate of crime in rural communities. The petitioners no longer feel safe in their communities because of the soft-on-crime laws passed by the Liberal-NDP government. They note that Bill C-75 made it easier for repeat violent offenders to obtain bail, Bill C-5 removed mandatory prison time for serious gun, drugs and sex crimes, and Bill C-21 redirects valuable police resources away from our streets and toward too much back-office work.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to protect victims of crime by giving jail, not bail, to repeat dangerous offenders and to bring home safe streets for rural communities by immediately passing the Conservative reforms found in Bill C-325.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what Bill C-21 will also do is improve the ability of CBSA to manage inadmissibility to Canada when foreign nationals commit firearms-related offences upon entry into this country.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to underscore that Bill C-21, which the member voted against, actually proposed to increase maximum penalties from 10 year of imprisonments to 14 years for firearms-related offences, including firearms smuggling and trafficking, which is a pressing issue not just in his riding but everywhere around the country.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-21, I would just underscore that it also includes red flag and yellow flag provisions. As a former Crown, the member opposite will appreciate that they will help keep people safe through an emergency weapons prohibition order to immediately remove a firearm for up to 30 days from an individual who may pose a danger to themselves or others, such as the member's constituents in Brantford—Brant.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through bills like Bill C-21 and through funding allocations that the member voted against, what we are putting in place are tools for the CBSA and the RCMP to interdict guns and gun trafficking to get them out of the hands of criminals and people who would do harm in our country.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would not use that terminology. I would say that when we put a national freeze on handgun sales through a bill like Bill C-21, we are keeping victims safe.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very open to looking at what is transpiring in California. Centring victims at the heart of our criminal justice strategy is important, and we have been attempting to do that with respect to victims of hatred, through the online hate bill; victims of child sex predation, through Bill C-63; victims of intimate partner violence, through our changes to the bail regime, not once but twice, through Bill C-48 and Bill C-75; and fundamentally, victims of gun violence in this country, through bills like Bill C-21, which would put a freeze on handgun sales and ensure tougher penalties with respect to things like gun trafficking. These are important provisions, but I am definitely willing to entertain suggestions about what California is doing and look at whether the model could be brought over.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, we are constantly working to ensure the rights of victims, including female victims, are entrenched in law in Canada. That is why Bill C-21 included red flag laws. That is why we established the sex offender registry. That is why I have worked on two occasions to ensure there is a reverse—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, the issue of safety is a priority for me, and I hope it is a priority for the members opposite. I am troubled by their opposition to basic premises, such as Bill C-21, which is about reducing the number of handguns in Canadian society and keeping women, like the member opposite—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of points in there, and I will respond to all of them.

The first point would be that in respect of Canadians' safety, what I would put to him is that Bill C-21, which he voted against, also dealt with intimate partner violence and things like red flag laws. Those have now become law, no thanks to him and his party and their voting pattern. The red flag laws actually allow the police to intercept firearms from the home of someone who is deemed to be a threat to their partner or to other individuals. That is called keeping Canadians safe, so I reject outright the premise of his earlier question.

With respect to bail, he will be aware that bail is a determination that is made by actors in our justice system, including justices of the peace. We have taken steps to strengthen the bail system to keep Canadians safe. On that piece, I will credit the member. He did vote in favour of Bill C-48, which deals with serious violent repeat offenders, on whom there is now a reverse onus for procuring bail. That is a step in the right direction in keeping Canadians safe.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to the member opposite that when he and his party vote against initiatives that keep Canadians safe, I think Canadians question the sincerity of questions like the one he just put to me.

Bill C-21, which I mentioned, talks about a national freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns. He voted against that. It also increased penalties for firearms trafficking. He voted against that. It also created new offences to help stop ghost guns. He voted against that.

If there was sincerity on the part of the member opposite with respect to tackling the pressing issue of gun violence, I would presume the voting pattern would have been the opposite.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Fundy Royal has decided to raise issues that relate to gun crimes, because I can indicate to Canadians watching this evening that we take gun violence very seriously. That is why we have taken steps with initiatives such as an assault rifle ban and a national ban and freeze on the sale of handguns. That was done in legislation in Bill C-21, which the member voted against.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not finished.

I will continue in English. I want to share this great speech with English-speaking Canadians.

After nine years of the Prime Minister's deficits doubling the national debt and doubling housing costs and a new budget that brings in $50 billion of new unfunded spending on promises he has already broken, this budget, just like the Prime Minister, is not worth the cost, and Conservatives will be voting no.

Before I get into the reasons, and my common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, I would like to pay the Minister of Finance a compliment for a page in her speech I thought was extremely illustrative. She said, “I would like Canada’s one per cent—Canada’s 0.1 per cent—to consider this: What kind of Canada do you want to live in?”

Before I go any further, let us point out the incredible irony that, as she and her leader point out, Canada's 0.1% are doing better than ever after nine years of the Prime Minister promising to go after them. Yes, they have benefited from the tens of billions of dollars of undeserved corporate welfare handouts and grants, ironically supported by the NDP; of corporate loan guarantees that protect them against losses in cases of incompetence or dishonest bidding; of contracts, of which there are now $21 billion, granted to outside and highly paid consultants, many of them making millions of dollars a year in taxpayer contracts for work that could be done inside the government itself if that work if of any value at all; and finally, of those grand fortunes that have been inflated by the $600 billion of inflationary money printing that has transferred wealth from the working class to the wealthiest among us. That 0.1% is doing better than ever after nine years of the Prime Minister pretending he would get tough on them.

Let me go on. I am interrupting myself. The Minister of Finance asked, “Do you want to live in a country where you can tell the size of someone’s paycheque by their smile?” Wow. How many Canadians are smiling when they look at their paycheque today? People are not smiling at all because a paycheque cannot buy them a basket of affordable food, according to Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor. He has said that the cost of a basket of food has gone up by thousands of dollars per year, but the majority of Canadians are spending hundreds of dollars less than is required to buy that basket. That means they are not getting enough food. We live in a country now where the average paycheque cannot pay the average rent, so nobody is smiling when they look at their paycheque.

The minister went on to ask, “Do you want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry?” According to the Prime Minister, one in four kids are going to school hungry after his nine years. I look here at a press release his government released on April 1, on April Fool's Day of all days, where he says, “Nearly one in four children do not get enough food”. In fact, it says that they do not get enough food “to learn and grow.”

No, we do not want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry, but according to the Prime Minister's own release, we do live in a country where one in four kids do go to school hungry. The Minister of Finance then said, “Do you want to live in a country where the only young Canadians who can buy their own homes are those with parents who can help with the downpayment?” No, we do not want to live in that country, but we do live in that country today.

According to data released by RBC Dominion, for the average family to afford monthly payments on the average home in Canada, the family would have to spend 64% of its pre-tax income. Most families do not keep 64% of pre-tax income because they pay so much in taxes. Therefore, most families would have to give up on eating, recreation, clothing themselves and transportation to be mathematically capable of making payments on the average home. For young people, it is even worse because they do not have a nest egg. They cannot afford a down payment that has doubled in the last nine years. That is why 76% of Canadians who do not own homes tell pollsters they believe they never will. Do we want to live in a country where the only young people who can afford a down payment are those whose parents can pay it for them? No. However, that is the country that we live in today.

“Do [you] want to live in a country where we make the investments we need in health care, in housing, in old age pensions, but we lack the political will to pay for them and choose instead to pass a ballooning debt on to our children?”

Are we living in the twilight zone here? These are the minister's words: Do we want to live in a country where we pass the bill on to our children with “ballooning debt”? She asks this as she is ballooning the debt by adding $40 billion to that debt. She asks this while giving a speech about the perils of passing ballooning debt to our children. She is the finance minister for the government that has added more debt than all previous governments combined in the preceding century and a half. It is worth noting that the Prime Minister has added his deficits as a share of GDP that are bigger than we had in World War I, in the Great Depression and in the great global recession of 2008 and 2009.

I should also note that the majority of debt that has been added under the Prime Minister was unrelated to COVID. The “dog ate my homework” excuse, of blaming COVID for all that is wrong in Canada, no longer works. I will add that we are now three years past COVID and the deficits and debt continue to grow, putting a lie to that entire endless, nauseating excuse that the government has made.

The Prime Minister has added so much debt that we are now spending more on interest for that debt than we are spending on health care; $54.1 billion in debt interest this year; more money for those wealthy bankers and bondholders who own our debt; and less money for the doctors and nurses whom we await when we sit for 26 hours in the average emergency room right across the country.

No, we do not want to live in a country that passes on a ballooning debt to our children, but after nine years of the Prime Minister, that is exactly the country in which we live.

The Minister of Finance asks, “Do [you] want to live in a country where those at the very top live lives of luxury?” Who does that remind us of? Somebody who flies around in a private jet to stay on secret islands on the other side of the hemisphere, where they treat him to $8,000 and $9,000-a-day luxuries, and he pays for it with the tax dollars of Canadians and emits thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, somebody luxuriates in that way at the expense of everyone else. He shall remain unnamed because we cannot say the Prime Minister's name in the House of Commons, so I will not break that parliamentary rule. However, I do point out the irony.

I will start again. The Minister of Finance asks:

Do [you] want to live in a country where those at the very top live lives of luxury but must do so in gated communities behind ever-higher fences using private health care and private planes because the public sphere is so degraded and the wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns so hot?

She says that the wrath of the majority of less privileged compatriots burns so hot. She is right that some people do not have the ability to live in gated communities, behind armed guards. Those people are told that they should leave their keys next to the door so that the car thieves can just walk in and peacefully steal their cars.

Communities across the country are being ravaged by crime, chaos, drugs and disorder. What she has described is exactly what is happening after nine years of the government. We have nurses in British Columbia hospitals who are terrified to go to work because the Prime Minister, in collusion with the NDP Premier of B.C., has decriminalized hard drugs and allowed the worst criminals to bring weapons and narcotics into their hospital rooms, where they cannot be confronted. We have 26 international students crammed into the basement of one Brampton home. We have a car stolen every 40 minutes in the GTA. We have 100% increase in gun killings across the country.

We have communities where people are terrified to go out. We have small businesses across Brampton and Surrey that are receiving letters weekly, warning them that if they do not write cheques for millions of dollars to extortionists, their homes will be shot up, and their children will have bullets flying through the windows as they are sleeping.

That is life in Canada today. Do we want to live in that country? No, we do not want to live in that country. After eight years of rising costs, rising crime and rising chaos, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. We will replace him with a common-sense Conservative government that will bring home a country we love.

What does that country look like and how will we get there? Fortunately, we have a common-sense plan that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Let us start with the carbon tax that went up 23% on April 1. Now we see the raging gas prices at the pumps across Ontario. There is chaos as people are desperately trying to get to the pumps and fill up before the latest hikes go ahead.

The Prime Minister celebrates, saying that high gas prices are his purpose, and he has the full support of the NDP leader on most days, when the NDP leader can figure out what his policy is. The NDP leader has voted 22 times to hike the carbon tax. Both parties, along with the help of the Bloc, have voted for future increases that will quadruple the tax to 61¢ a litre, a tax that will also apply on home heating bills and, of course, a tax that applies to the farmers who produce the food, the truckers who ship the food and therefore on all who buy the food.

That is why common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax to bring home lower prices. We take exactly the opposite approach of the Prime Minister when it comes to protecting our environment. His approach is to raise the cost on traditional energy we still need. Our approach is to lower the cost on other alternatives. We will green light green projects, like nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, carbon capture and storage, mining of critical minerals, like lithium, cobalt, copper and others. We will do this by repealing the unconstitutional Bill C-69 so that we can approve these projects in 18 months, rather than in 18 years.

Here is the difference, the Prime Minister wants taxes, I want technology. He wants to drive our money to the dirty dictators abroad, I want to bring it home in powerful paycheques for our people in this country.

The same approach that will allow us to unleash energy, abundance and affordability is the approach we will take to build the homes; that is to say getting the government gatekeepers out of the way.

Why do we have the worst housing inflation in the G7 after nine years of the Prime Minister? Why have housing costs risen 40% faster than paycheques? It is by far the worst gap of any G7 country. Why did UBS say Toronto had the worst housing bubble in the world? Vancouver is the third most overpriced when comparing median income to median house price according to Demographia. Why? Because we have the worst bureaucracy when it comes to home building.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, Canada has the second slowest building permits out of nearly 40 OECD countries. These permitting costs add $1.3 million to the cost of every newly built home in Vancouver, and $350,000 to every newly built home in Toronto. Winnipeg blocked 2,000 homes next to a transit station that was built for those homes. The City of Montreal has blocked 25,000 homes in the last seven years. Literally hundreds of thousands of homes are waiting to be built, but are locked up in slow permitting processes.

What do we have as a solution? The Prime Minister has taken the worst immigration minister in our country's history, the guy the Prime Minister blamed for causing out-of-control temporary immigration to balloon housing prices, and put him in charge of housing. Since that time, the minister has said that his housing accelerator fund of $4 billion does not actually build any homes.

Since he has doled out all of this cash to political friends in incompetent city halls across the country, home building has dropped. In fact, home building is down this year and, according to the federal government's housing agency, it will be down next year and again the year after that. That is a housing decelerator not accelerator.

That is what happens when a minister is chosen because he is a media darling and a fast talker, rather than someone who gets things done, as I did when I was housing minister. The rent was only $973 a month for the average family right across the country, and the average house price was roughly $400,000. That is results. There was less talk and less government spending, but far more homes. That is what our common-sense plan will do again.

Our plan will build the homes by requiring municipalities to speed up, permit more land and build faster. They will be required to permit 15% more homes per year as a condition of getting federal funding, and to permit high-rise apartments around every federally funded transit station. We will sell off 6,000 federal buildings and thousands of acres of federal land to build. We will get rid of the carbon tax to lower the cost of building materials.

Finally, we will reward the working people who build homes, because we need more boots, not more suits. We will pass the common-sense Conservative law that allows trade workers to write off the full cost of transportation, food and accommodation to go from one work site to another, so they can build the homes while bringing home paycheques for themselves.

These homes will be in safe neighbourhoods. We will stop the crime by making repeat violent offenders ineligible for bail, parole or house arrest. That will mean no more catch and release. We will repeal Bill C-5, the house arrest law. We will repeal Bill C-75, the catch-and-release law. We will repeal Bill C-83, the cushy living for multiple murderers law that allows Paul Bernardo to enjoy tennis courts and skating rinks that most Canadian taxpaying families can no longer afford outside of prison.

We will bring in jail and not bail for repeat violent offenders. We will repeal the entire catch-and-release criminal justice agenda that the radical Prime Minister, with the help of the loony-left NDP, has brought in. The radical agenda that has turned many of our streets into war zones will be a thing of the past.

We will also stop giving out deadly narcotics. I made a video about the so-called safe supply. I went to the tragic site of yet another homeless encampment in Vancouver, which used to be one of the most beautiful views in the entire world. Now it is unfortunately a place where people live in squalor and die of overdoses. Everyone said it was terrible that I was planning to take away the tax-funded drugs and that all of the claims I made were just a bunch of conspiracy theories, but everything I said then has been proven accurate, every word of it.

I noticed that the Liberals and the pointy-headed professors they relied on for their policies have all gone into hiding as well. Why is that? It is because the facts are now coming out. Even the public health agency in British Columbia, which has been pushing the NDP-Liberal ideology, is admitting that the tax-funded hydromorphone is being diverted. The police in Vancouver said this week that 50% of all the high-powered hydromorphone opioids are paid for with tax dollars and given out by public health agencies supposedly to save lives. Now we know that those very powerful drugs are being resold to children, who are getting hooked on them, and the profits are being used to buy even more dangerous fentanyl, tranq and other drugs that are leaving our people face-first on the pavement, dying of record overdoses.

The so-called experts always tell us to ignore the bumper stickers and look at the facts. The facts are in. In British Columbia, where this radical and incomparable policy has been most enthusiastically embraced, overdose deaths are up 300%. They have risen in B.C. faster than anywhere else in Canada and possibly anywhere else in North America. The ultraprogressive state of Oregon has reversed decriminalization, recognizing the total chaos, death and destruction the policy has caused.

What does the radical Prime Minister, with the help of his NDP counterpart, do? They look at the death and destruction that has occurred in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver and other communities and say we should have more of that. They took a walk, or better yet, these two politicians probably drove through the Downtown Eastside in their bulletproof limousines. They looked around at the people who were bent over completely tranquilized by fentanyl, saw the people lying face-first on the ground, saw the tents that the police would have pointed out are filled with dangerous guns and drugs, saw all the small businesses that were shuttered by this policy and said that we should have more of that. They want to replicate all the policies that have created it so that we can have tent cities and homeless encampments in every corner of the country.

That is exactly what they have done. In Halifax, there are 35 homeless encampments in one city after nine years of the Prime Minister, his NDP counterpart and the Liberal mayor of Halifax. If we look at every town in this country, we will find homeless encampments that never existed before the last nine years. This policy will go down in infamy as one of the most insane experiments ever carried out on a population. Nowhere else in the world is this being done. The Liberals gaslight us. They love to say that all the civilized people believe that giving out these drugs will save lives, but nowhere else is this being done. When we tell people this is happening, they have a hard time believing that we are giving out heroin-grade drugs for free to addicts and expecting it to save lives.

Now they spill into our hospitals, where nurses are told by the NPD government in B.C. and the Liberal government in Ottawa that they are not allowed to take away crack pipes or knives or guns. They are just supposed to expect that someone is going to consume the drugs, have a massive fit and start slashing up the hospital floor. This is something out of a bad hallucination and a hallucination that will come to an end when I am prime minister. We will end this nightmare.

We will also ensure that Canadians have a better way. We are not only going to ban the drugs. We are not only going to stop giving out taxpayer-funded drugs. We are going to provide treatment and recovery.

If people are watching today and are suffering from addiction and do not know how they can turn their lives around, I want them to know that there is hope. There is a better future ahead. We will put the money into beautiful treatment centres with counselling, group therapy, physical exercise, yoga and sweat lodges for first nations, where people can graduate drug-free, live in nearby housing that helps them transition into a law-abiding, drug-free life, and come back to the centre for a counselling session, a workout or maybe even to mentor an incoming addict on the hopeful future that is ahead. That is the way we are going to bring our loved ones home, drug-free.

As I always say, we are going to have a common-sense dollar-for-dollar law, requiring that we find one dollar of savings for every new dollar of spending. In this case, that will include how we will partly pay for this. We will unleash the biggest lawsuit in Canadian history against the corrupt pharmaceutical companies that profited off of this nightmare. We will make them pay.

Finally, we will stop the gun crime. We know that gun crime is out of control. Just yesterday, we saw this gold heist. By the way, all of the gold thieves are out on bail already, so do not to worry. They will have to send the Prime Minister a nugget of gold to thank him for passing Bill C-75 and letting them out of jail within a few days of this monster gold heist.

Why did they steal the gold? They stole the gold so that they could buy the guns, because we know that all of the gun crime is happening with stolen guns. The Prime Minister wants to ban all civilian, law-abiding people from owning guns, but he wants to allow every criminal to have as many guns as they want. I am not just talking about rifles. I am talking about machine guns, fully loaded machine guns that are being found on the street, which never existed since they were banned in the 1970s. Now the criminals can get them because the Prime Minister has mismanaged the federal borders and ports and because he is wasting so much money going after the good guys.

The Prime Minister wants to ban our hunting rifles. He said so in a December 2022 interview with CTV. He was very clear. If someone has a hunting rifle, he said he will have to take it away. He kept his word by introducing a 300-page amendment to his Bill C-21, which would have banned 300 pages of the most popular and safe hunting rifles. He only put that policy on hold because of a backlash that common-sense Conservatives led, which included rural Canadians, first nations Canadians and NDPers from rural communities. He had to flip-flop.

I know that in places like Kapuskasing, the law-abiding people enjoy hunting. While the NDP leader and the Prime Minister look down on those people and think that they are to blame for crime, we know that the hunters in Kapuskasing are the salt of the earth, the best people around, and we are going to make sure that they can keep their hunting rifles. God love them. God love every one of them.

While the Prime Minister wants to protect turkeys from hunters, common-sense Conservatives want to protect Canadians from criminals. That is why we will repeal his insane policies.

By the way, I should point out that he has not even done any of the bans. We remember that he had that big press conference during the election. He said to his policy team that morning that he needed them to come up with a policy that would allow him to put a big, scary-looking black gun on his podium sign. They said, “Okay, we will think of something.” He put that scary-looking gun on his podium sign, and he said he was going to ban all of these assault rifles. They asked him what an assault rifle was, and he said he did not know, just that it was the black, scary thing on the front of his podium sign. That was the assault rifle he was referring to.

It is now three years since he made that promise. He was asked again in the hallways what an assault rifle was. He said he was still working to figure it out. These rifles that he says he is going to ban one day, he does not know what they are but one day he is going to figure it out and ban them. In the meantime, he has spent $40 million to buy exactly zero guns from owners. He said he was going to ban them and buy them from the owners. Not one gun has been taken off the street after spending $40 million.

We could have used that money to hire CBSA officers who would have secured our ports against the thousands of illegal guns that are pouring in and killing people on our streets. When I am prime minister, we will cancel this multi-billion dollar waste of money. We will use it to hire frontline boots-on-the-ground officers who will inspect shipping containers and to buy scanners that can pierce inside to stop the drugs, stop the illegal guns, stop the export of our stolen cars and stop the crime.

What we are seeing is a very different philosophical approach. The finance minister said in her concluding remarks that what we need is bigger and stronger government. Does that not sound eerie? In other words, she and the Prime Minister want to be bigger and stronger. That is why they are always trying to make Canadians feel weaker and smaller. The Prime Minister literally called our people a small, fringe minority. He jabs his fingers in the faces of our citizens. He calls small businesses tax cheats. He claims that those who own hunting rifles are just Americans.

The Prime Minister points his fingers at people who disagree with him. He has the audacity of claiming that anyone who is offside with him is a racist. This is a guy who dressed up in racist costumes so many times he cannot remember them all. He has been denigrating other people his whole life. That is because it is all about him. It is all about concentrating more power and more money in his hands. This budget is no different. It is about a bigger government and smaller citizens. It is about buying his way through the next election with cash that the working-class people have earned and he has burned.

By contrast, I want the opposite. I want smaller government to make room for bigger citizens. I want a state that is a servant and not the master. I want a country where the prime minister actually lives up to the meaning of the word: “prime” meaning “first”, and “minister” meaning “servant”. That is what “minister” means. “Minister” is not master; “minister” is servant.

We need a country that puts people back in charge of their money, their communities, their families and their lives, a country based on the common sense of the common people, united for our common home, their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House reject the government's budget since it fails to:

a. Axe the tax on farmers and food by passing Bill C-234 in its original form.

b. Build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities permit 15% more home building each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money.

c. Cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation by requiring the government to find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending.

Firearms

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present.

The first one is a petition of the House that comes from Canadians who are concerned about Bill C-21, a bill that targets law-abiding firearms owners. The petitioners say that hunting and firearms ownership play an important role in Canadian history and culture. The petitioners are concerned about the government's intent to ban several hunting rifles and shotguns, including bolt-action rifles.

The petitioners ask that the government leave their guns alone, that it votes against Bill C-21 and that it protects the property rights of Canadian hunters.

I support that wholeheartedly.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today.

The first petition comes from Canadians across the country who are concerned about Bill C-21. The bill targets law-abiding firearms owners.

The petitioners state that hunting and firearm ownership play an important role in Canadian society and history. They are concerned about the government's intent to ban several hunting rifles and shotguns, including bolt-action rifles. The petitioners ask the government to leave their guns alone and, to protect property rights of Canadian hunters, to vote against Bill C-21.

Alleged Inadmissibility of Amendment to Motion, Government Business No. 34

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your accommodating the timing of this. I apologize to the members who are involved in debate, but because the matter is currently under consideration by the House, I think giving the Speaker as much time as possible to consider it would be appropriate.

I am rising to ask that you rule the amendment made to the motion, Government Business No. 34, out of order, since according to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 541, it introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

The main motion proposes two things in relation to Bill C-62. Part (a) would establish committee meetings on the subject matter of Bill C-62. It proposes one hour to hear from a minister and two hours to hear from other witnesses.

Part (b) deals specifically with the time and management for each stage of the bill. Part (b)(i) would order the consideration by the House of a second reading stage and provides for the number of the speakers, length of speeches, length of debate and deferral of the vote at second reading. It would also restrict the moving of dilatory motions to that of a minister of the Crown. Part b(ii) would deem that Bill C-62 be referred to a committee of the whole and be deemed reported back without amendments, and it would order the consideration of third reading on Thursday, February 15, 2024.

Nowhere does the motion deal with the substance or the text of Bill C-62; it is a programming motion dealing with process, not substance. While this can and has been done by unanimous consent, it cannot be done by way of an amendment. The consequence of an amendment to allow for the expansion of the scope of Bill C-62 and, at the same time, proposing to amend the text of Bill C-62, is that it would, if accepted, expand the scope of the motion.

The process to expand the scope of the bill outside of unanimous consent is to adopt a stand-alone motion after the proper notice and procedures were followed. Page 756 of Bosc and Gagnon describes that procedure as follows:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

Alternatively, a separate, stand-alone bill would suffice to introduce the concept of the subject material that is under the amendment for MAID. It is not in order to accomplish this by way of a simple amendment to a programming motion dealing with the management of House time on a government bill.

If you were to review the types of amendments to programming motions, and I am not talking about unanimous consent motions, they all deal with the management of House and committee time, altering the numbers of days, hours of meetings, witnesses, etc. As recently as December 4, 2023, the House disposed of an amendment that dealt with the minister's appearing as a witness and the deletion of parts of the bill dealing with time allocation. This was also the case for the programming motions for Bill C-56, Bill C-31 and Bill C-12.

Unless the main motion strays from the management of time and routine procedural issues and touches on the actual text of the bill, an amendment that attempts to amend the bill is out of order. For example, on May 9, 2023, the House adopted a programming motion for Bill C-21, the firearms act. Part (a) of the main motion then stated that:

it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to expand its scope, including that it applies to all proceedings that have taken place prior to the adoption of this order...

The motion went on at some length, instructing the committee to consider a number of amendments to the act. This in turn allowed the Conservative Party to propose an amendment to the programming motion and offer its own amendments to the bill itself, which addressed illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs and brought in measures to crack down on border smuggling and to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada, to name just a few.

The point is that if the main motion does not address the text of the bill, an amendment cannot introduce the new proposition of amending the text of the bill to the programming motion, which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was just saying that this man, Jacques Lamontagne, is a seasoned professional and he said the following:

There are more legal consequences to crossing the border with four kilos of cocaine than with stolen vehicles. Both crimes pay big dividends [to criminal groups and] the criminal underworld. Young thugs run less of a risk if they steal a Jeep Wrangler than if they sell narcotics on the street....There's not much of a deterrent if people know that they'll probably be let off for a first [offence] or, at worst, serve four to six months for car theft compared to a sentence lasting years for selling illicit substances.

I will return to Mr. Lamontagne's use of the term “young thugs”. The phenomenon is fairly widespread. Crime gangs often use young people who often have no criminal record and are sometimes minors. They are asked to steal cars or transport illegal guns because the punishment for first offences is rarely harsh. It is a kind of strategy that these people use. I am not saying that the thieves should not go to prison, but I think that we need to focus primarily on going after these criminal gangs and their leaders.

Where the Conservative Party goes wrong is in assuming that this entire crisis was created by the Prime Minister himself and by lax policies, like Bill C-5, as the Conservatives are claiming.

The motion specifically calls on the government to "immediately reverse changes the Liberal government made in their soft on crime Bill C-5 that allows for car stealing criminals to be on house arrest instead of jail.” Reading the motion, it is clear that the Conservatives are trying to link the increase in auto theft since 2015 to Bill C-5. As my colleague mentioned earlier, Bill C-5 received royal assent at the very end of 2022. I have no idea how the Conservatives came to the conclusion that Bill C-5 is to blame, since auto theft has been increasing since 2015. I do not think there is one simple explanation. The Conservatives are trying to find simple solutions to complicated problems. They say that this Prime Minister has been in office since 2015, so he is responsible for all of society's problems. Again, I am not defending the Prime Minister, but at some point, members have to put forward serious arguments.

Contrary to Conservative claims, Bill C‑5 did not do away with minimum sentences for auto theft. Subsection 333.1(1) of the Criminal Code provides for a minimum sentence of six months in the case of a third offence. The Conservatives may well say that is not enough, but there is one major problem with their assertion. Are they aware that subsection 333.1(1) was added to the Criminal Code by the Conservatives themselves in 2010 via Bill S‑9? If they now find that that is not enough, they have only themselves to blame.

In this motion, the Conservatives also say that Bill C‑5 allowed for conditional sentences for auto theft. These are also known as house arrest, or what the Conservative leader likes to call Netflix sentences. It is true that the Liberals repealed subparagraph 742.1(f)(vii), which prevented conditional sentencing for auto theft. However, the other paragraphs in section 742.1 set out conditions for conditional sentencing: The court must be convinced that there is no risk to society, and the term of imprisonment must be less than two years. The judge may also impose any conditions they deem necessary. In other words, there is nothing preventing a judge from saying no to a conditional sentence. A judge should be able to exercise judgment. The Conservatives are assuming judges are not capable of doing that.

A conditional sentence cannot be imposed for a sentence of two years or more, so it is not an option in the most serious cases, because the maximum sentence is actually 10 years.

The Conservatives are also forgetting that there is always a bail hearing to determine whether an offender can be released while awaiting trial. Unless there are aggravating factors, it is rare for a person to remain in jail while awaiting trial for auto theft. In other words, the Conservatives' claim that criminals are being caught and then immediately released because of Bill C‑5 is unfounded, because that was happening long before Bill C‑5 came into force.

Once again, it is up to the judge to decide whether an offender should be kept in jail while awaiting trial and what conditions the offender must meet, especially since, as I mentioned earlier, criminals often use minors because they are handed lesser sentences.

I agree with the Conservatives about one thing in every case. Part of the problem is that Ottawa has done absolutely nothing to control auto theft. Under the current conditions, even life in prison will not act as a deterrent, because the federal government is doing absolutely nothing to monitor the port of Montreal, where criminals can easily ship stolen vehicles overseas. I will come back to that later.

However, I want to close by talking about the second part of the Conservative motion, which seeks to “strengthen Criminal Code provisions to ensure repeat car stealing criminals remain in jail”.

Once again, it was the Conservatives who created a specific offence for auto theft, with their Bill S‑9 and section 333.1 in 2010. If they believe that sentences are not long enough, they have only themselves to blame.

The Conservative leader proposed that a third offence be punishable by three years in prison instead of the six months set out in the Criminal Code. The current six-month sentence in the Criminal Code was a Conservative initiative. What the Conservative Party is proposing today are changes to measures it put in place when it was in power.

The Conservative leader is also talking about eliminating house arrest, or conditional sentences, for thieves. As I said, a sentence of two years or more already cannot be served at home. That said, Bill C-5 did allow judges to impose house arrest if they deemed it appropriate, but not automatically, as the Conservatives like to claim. However, the bill did not make any changes to release pending trial.

Let us make one thing clear: The Bloc Québécois is entirely open to revising the Criminal Code to deal with auto theft. That is what the Montreal police department wants as well. This time, they believe that new sections should be added concerning the export of stolen vehicles and that there should be stricter penalties for ring leaders. I think that might be a good solution. I imagine that will come out in the discussions at the national summit on Thursday.

The last proposal in the Conservative motion concerns the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and the export of stolen vehicles. It asks that the CBSA be provided with the resources it needs to prevent auto theft in Canada. I could not agree more with this proposal.

I spoke about this a few months ago. I think that the CBSA, which is under federal jurisdiction, needs to do more. Some people say that it does not have the resources it needs to do more right now, that it is short on labour and funds. They need to figure out what the problem is. Clearly, the CBSA is not doing enough right now.

I spoke about auto theft and how thieves steal vehicles; that is the first step. The second step is exporting the vehicles. Like auto theft, shipping the vehicles out of the country is practically risk free. Clearly, for criminal gangs, it means higher costs and more organization, but it seems to be going well when you look at what is happening at the port of Montreal. That is because it is a sieve.

Around 700,000 containers leave the port of Montreal every year. According to the Customs and Immigration Union, only 1% of all containers are searched. According to the Montreal Port Authority, or MPA, the law does not allow employees or the port authority to open a container unless a person's life is in danger or there is a serious environmental hazard. According to the port's director of communications, when the containers arrive at the port, it is already too late to do anything. The containers remain sealed unless law enforcement intervenes for a specific reason. They need a warrant to open them, so they need reasonable grounds.

Police forces have access to the port and can intervene. However, they do not patrol there because the MPA already has its own security guards. The MPA does not intervene because the police can do it and the police do not intervene because the MPA has its own security guards, so that is just great.

As for customs, the CBSA is responsible for controlling goods for export. CBSA agents can open containers. However, in October, we learned from the Journal de Montréal that there are only five border agents to inspect the containers in Montreal, which makes the task practically impossible. Yes, the CBSA is responsible for overseeing exports, but its mandate is more focused on imports. It also needs to look at what is coming into the country. That is understandable. Do changes need to be made to the CBSA's mandate to ensure that exports are better monitored? I think that is something we need to think about.

Another reason why it is easy to export stolen cars is that anyone can rent a container by filling out a simple online declaration form for the shipping company. We could do it without any problem, just as a small business could. Anyone can change their form up to 48 hours after shipping, so that obviously makes it possible for thieves to cover their tracks once the goods are already on their way to Europe, the Middle East or Africa.

Finally, criminals use numbered companies to fill out those forms. They often use the same or similar serial numbers to defraud the CBSA on their export declaration form.

It should be easy for the Canada Border Services Agency to spot, easy to see that a vehicle serial number comes up repeatedly. At least, Le Journal de Montréal was able to do just that and identify the issue using a simple Excel document. However, for some unknown reason, it seems too difficult for the CBSA.

As early as the fall of 2015, an Auditor General's report stated that export control at the border is ineffective and that only one in five high-risk containers was inspected. Now, we are being told that there are almost no inspections and that, even when there is a concern that there may be high-risk contents, only one container in five is searched and checked. It is easy to understand why there are a huge number of stolen vehicles passing through the port of Montreal without anyone noticing.

I asked the customs union to come testify before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C‑21. The union told us that a lot of illegal or stolen material is shipped in containers that travel in and out of Canada not only by water, but also by train, and that the agency performs almost no inspections. At the time, the government dismissed the criticism out of hand, saying that it did not consider this information important.

What Le Journal de Montréal's investigative bureau reported, in a nutshell, is that only five officers at the Port of Montreal conduct searches. They rely on a temperamental cargo scanner that is constantly breaking down. The agency refuses to second an investigator to a special stolen vehicle export squad. The same serial numbers come up again and again. Critical information is not being forwarded to port services or police in a timely manner, and the agency apparently omits to report high-risk containers to its partners.

We see that many organizations are involved, but, despite that, nothing is getting done.

I would be very pleased to answer my colleagues' questions and I hope the summit being held next week will contribute to finding solutions to address this scourge.

Criminal Code

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for outlining that important situation. It reflects the needs and concerns of communities right around this country, particularly with respect to firearms.

What I would identify for him is that we have firearms legislation that is currently in the Senate: Bill C-21 is geared toward promoting community safety.

I would also refer him to the specific provisions asked for by Conservative, Liberal and NDP premiers right around the country about ensuring that bail is not provided when people have violated the rules relating to having a loaded, prohibited or restricted firearm. We have added to those and have actually gone further than what was asked for by the premiers to include those who break and enter to steal a firearm, use robbery to steal a firearm or make an automatic firearm.

There is no doubt that ensuring that we get tough with firearms and those who use firearms to commit crimes is part and parcel of keeping our communities safe. This bill will help do that by ensuring those types of people do not get bail, as will Bill C-21.

Carbon Pricing

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let us keep talking about respect for democracy in the House of Commons. Unelected Conservative senators are blocking the passage of an important gun control bill that passed the House. If our friends across the aisle want to do something for democracy, they should ask the Conservative senators in their caucus to pass Bill C‑21, which was passed by the House of Commons, to protect Canadians from illegal firearms in Canada.

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑332, which amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of engaging in controlling or coercive conduct that has a significant impact on the person towards whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities.

The issue of controlling and coercive conduct has been an interest of mine for quite some time. This type of conduct includes physical, sexual and emotional abuse, financial control, and implicit or explicit threats to the partner or ex-partner and to their children, belongings or even pets.

First I will spend a little more time talking about the definition, before moving on to other measures we are currently looking at to address violence. I will conclude by explaining some of our concerns with the bill.

First, I have discussed the topic with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord on a number of occasions. That is how I found out that Megan Stephens, one of the witnesses who participated in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' study, had mentioned a minor complication, namely, the fact that there is no universally accepted definition. However, the following are some of the definitions that were given over the course of the study: limiting transportation, denying access to household, controlling food consumption, disconnecting phone lines, breaking cell phones and preventing them from going to work or going to school. Combined together, all those forms of behaviour fall under coercive control.

Abusive partners uses isolation, both physical and psychological, as a means to control their partner's contact with friends and family to emotionally bind the partner to them with the shackles of fear, dependency and coercive tactics of control.

In some cases, the violent partner uses state-sanctioned structures to continue to coerce and control their victim by creating problems related to custody of the children and visitation rights. The justice system is used as a weapon against the victim. According to a study published by Statistics Canada in April 2021, intimate partner violence is a serious problem, and controlling and coercive behaviours are an integral part of that. It is difficult to know the exact scope of this type of violence in Canada, because most cases are not reported to the police.

I want to point out that, in 2021, we were in the midst of the pandemic and victims were at home with their abusers 24-7. The fact that most cases of intimate partner violence are not reported to the police is the biggest impediment to determining how many people are affected, documenting the situation and implementing solutions for the victims of these types of behaviour. It is difficult for them to find a way to talk so someone.

During her testimony in committee, Lisa Smylie, the director general of communications and public affairs for the research, results and delivery branch at the Department for Women and Gender Equality, said that only about 36% of domestic violence incidents and 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. Those numbers are very low.

According to the data reported by the country's police forces in 2018, women living in rural areas experience intimate partner violence the most. That is also important to note. What is more, even though coercive and controlling violence may be present in other cases, it is present in 95% of cases of domestic violence as we know it.

Today, it is facilitated by technological advances such as geolocation systems, miniature cameras, smart phones and social media platforms. This makes everything more complex. All these things make it easier for the abusers when they want to continue to inflict harm and reinforce the isolation and control, regardless of where their victim may be. There are also the traditional forms of blackmail on social media, such as identity theft, the repeated sending of threatening messages or the disclosure of personal information or content about the victim that is sexual in nature.

In light of the testimony offered during the study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a rather high number of offences under the Criminal Code can apply to domestic violence. The committee noted a few problems with the enforcement of the current legislation in the cases of victims of coercive or controlling violence.

Victims are wary of and have little confidence in existing mechanisms, police services and the justice system to adequately deal with their trauma. A number of stakeholders noted that victims believe that they will not be taken seriously and they worry about myths. They do not want to be judged by institutions on their credibility when they report their abusers.

Abusers often create financial and other forms of dependence, which limits the actions that victims caught in this vicious circle can take, because they could lose everything, end up on the street or lose custody of their children.

The divide between the criminal justice system, family courts and community organizations needs to be addressed.

When elements of coercive control and other forms of control are present, the criminal and judicial systems too often say that simply telling one's story is not enough to file a complaint.

Lastly, one of the most serious obstacles is the under-enforcement of the law. Multiple charges against violent men are often reduced to a single charge, usually assault. This charge is then often withdrawn in exchange for a peace bond. This is the infamous section 810.

The many femicides and cases of harassment demonstrate the limitations and the weakness of section 810 in cases where violent men pose a high risk of reoffending. They must be treated differently and required to wear an electronic monitoring device.

Second, the bill proposed by the member for Victoria is part of a growing trend among legislators to focus on coercive violence. In recent years, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report on this issue, which was presented in the House on April 27, 2021. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women also touched on the issue during its study on intimate partner violence and made two motions a priority for the winter of 2024, one of which was my study proposal to look at international best practices in this area and try to learn from them.

I also examined this issue to a lesser degree at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, when I participated a few times in its study on safe practices in sport and the topic of coercive control came up.

More recently, the Liberal member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle's Bill C‑233, which was also examined by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, received royal assent on April 27.

The bill amended the Criminal Code to require judges, in cases of domestic violence, to consider whether it is appropriate for the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device before issuing a release order. In addition, the bill amended the Judges Act to include an obligation to hold continuing education seminars on issues of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and coercive control.

To a lesser extent, Bill C-21, which is currently before the Senate, focuses primarily on gun control and revoking possession when an individual is suspected of, or has engaged in, domestic violence, including coercive and controlling behaviour. This is part of a trend.

Third, Bill C-332 amends the Criminal Code, after section 264, by introducing the concept of controlling or coercive conduct as a criminal offence. The Bloc Québécois supports the objective of Bill C-332. However, we see several major shortcomings that will have to be studied in committee. The scope of the bill should be expanded to allow former spouses or other family members who are not part of the household to testify, in order to break the infamous “one person's word against another's” system. That is good.

What is more, consideration of testimony from neighbours, colleagues or others might also make it easier for victims to come forward. The severity of sentences and the consideration given to children in cases of coercive or controlling violent behaviour are other important factors. Reviewing the grounds on which prosecutors drop several charges and opt for the lowest common denominator shows that this can hinder the administration of justice and undermine public confidence and the victims' confidence in the courts that deal with these issues. We have to study all of that.

There are already 35 sections in the Criminal Code that can apply to domestic or family violence. They just need to be rigorously enforced, and we need to think of ways of ensuring that prosecutors rely on these sections more often in cases of coercive or controlling violence. We also need to address the difficulties associated with collecting evidence and ensuring solid and sound prosecution.

Megan Stephens, Executive Director and General Counsel at Women's Legal Education and Action Fund argued that Bill C‑247 and Bill C‑332 can make the legislation unnecessarily complex because new concepts are being introduced when the Criminal Code already contains very similar offences, particularly on criminal harassment and human trafficking. We will need to take a closer look at that.

The wording of the two NDP members' bills does not address the issue of victims having to relive their trauma. They will have to retell their stories over and over again, just as they do now, which has been roundly criticized. Furthermore, Bill C-332, as currently drafted, does not change how these matters are dealt with by the courts and the authorities.

In closing, if we want to ensure that this never happens again, if we want to put an end to this shadow epidemic, we must take action. We must take action because violence is not always physical, but it always hurts.

As a final point, the Quebec National Assembly has also made this call. I had a discussion with an MNA in Quebec City this summer. She told me that the Quebec National Assembly had done its part, that it had produced the report “Rebuilding Trust” and said that the ball was now in Ottawa's court. She said that the National Assembly does not have jurisdiction to study coercive control in the Criminal Code. I took it upon myself to heed the call from the Quebec National Assembly, a call made by female MNAs who did exceptional, non-partisan work.

Let us try to examine it intelligently in committee.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C‑325. I would like to say from the outset that we will be voting in favour of the bill so that it can be studied in committee. I am confident that my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will make a constructive contribution. I will begin my speech with a summary of the bill. I will then go over Quebec's requests. Lastly, I will briefly go over some highly publicized cases, such as the one involving Marylène Levesque.

First, the bill would create a new offence for the breach of conditions of conditional release for certain serious offences with a maximum sentence of two years, or at least in relation to a summary conviction. It would require the reporting of the breach of conditions to the authorities, and it would amend the Criminal Code to preclude persons convicted of certain offences from serving their sentence in the community.

The reality is that judges have the discretion to impose a community-based sentence, but are not obligated to do so. Judges must weigh a series of factors before handing down a sentence. Crown prosecutors could also agree with the defence on a community-based sentence if they felt that the circumstances warranted it.

The bill is short. It contains only three clauses and amends two acts, namely the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Clause 1 of Bill C‑325 adds a subsection to section 145 of the Criminal Code. It adds a criminal offence after subsection 5 for the breach of conditions of conditional release; for the breach of a condition of parole; and for breach of a condition of a release on reconnaissance. As mentioned in Bill C‑325, schedules I and II of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act include a wide range of offences, from child pornography to attempted murder. The intention is to tighten up the legislation for breaches of conditions of parole or statutory release, which is the almost automatic release after completion of two-thirds of a sentence. However, there is no evidence that Bill C‑325 is necessary, since the Parole Board of Canada, or PBC, already has the power to revoke parole. For example, a sexual predator in Montreal recently had his parole revoked by the PBC for breach of his conditions.

Subclause 2(1) of Bill C‑325 replaces paragraph 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code, which specifies that a sentence may be served at home for certain offences, to simply disqualify a sentence from being served in the community for any offence that carries a maximum sentence of 14 years or more. The current paragraph 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code states that a community-based sentence cannot be handed down for the following offences: attempt to commit murder, torture, or advocating genocide. Bill C‑325 is therefore much broader than paragraph 742.1(c), since many offences now carry a maximum sentence of 14 years, such as altering a firearm magazine once Bill C‑21 receives royal assent.

Subclause 2(2) adds two new paragraphs after paragraph 742.1(d) to specify that a conditional sentence, that is, a sentence to be served in the community, cannot be imposed for an offence that resulted in bodily harm, that involved drug trafficking, or that involved the use of a weapon. In addition, a community-based sentence cannot be imposed for the following offences: prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking, abduction of a person under the age of 14, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering, being unlawfully in a dwelling-house, and arson for a fraudulent purpose. That is a pretty broad list, and we will have to see in committee whether certain offences need to be added or removed.

Clause 3 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It states that, if a parole supervisor discovers that an offender on conditional release has breached their parole conditions, they must inform the Parole Board, the Attorney General and the police force with jurisdiction where the breach occurred of the breach and the circumstances surrounding the breach.

It is important to note that, contrary to what the Conservatives suggest, judges have discretionary power to give individuals community-based sentences. It is not automatic, and judges must factor in the risk of reoffending and the consequences of a sentence served at home.

Second, the Bloc Québécois intends to introduce a bill that addresses problems with Bill C‑5. The member for Rivière-du-Nord talked about the upcoming introduction of a bill to close some of the gaps in Bill C‑5. According to my colleague, conditional sentences should be not be allowed for most sexual assault cases and gun crimes, and he will be introducing a bill in the coming weeks to reinstate minimum sentences for those crimes. While Bill C‑5 was up for debate, the National Assembly unanimously passed a motion condemning its controversial provisions. My colleague's bill is based on that motion.

The motion accused Ottawa of setting back the fight against sexual assault. The member for Rivière‑du‑Nord had already moved an amendment to the bill that would have retained minimum sentences while giving judges discretion to depart from them in exceptional cases, with justification. This amendment was defeated, but the Bloc Québécois ended up voting for Bill C‑5 anyway, since it also provided for diversion for simple drug possession offences. As justice critic, the member for Rivière-du-Nord intends to call for the government to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new bill that, in his opinion, could satisfy both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I know that he has spoken about this a few times.

Third, I will talk about a few cases to provide some food for thought in this debate. A man who assaulted a sleeping woman benefited from the leniency of a judge who sentenced him to serve his sentence in the community, even though he himself was prepared to go to jail.

On Monday, a Crown prosecutor expressed outrage that, after eight years of legal proceedings, a sex offender was let off with a 20-month sentence to be served in the community. In his words, the federal Liberals “have a lot to answer for to victims”. Since the passage of Bill C‑5 in June, it is once again possible to impose a conditional sentence, or a sentence to be served in the community, for the crime of sexual assault, which had not been allowed since 2007. The Crown prosecutor blames Parliament for passing Bill C‑5, which reintroduced conditional sentences.

The other highly publicized case is that of Marylène Levesque. Coroner Stéphanie Gamache determined that an electronic bracelet with geolocation could have prevented Ms. Levesque's murder in January 2020 in a Quebec City hotel room. The coroner recommended that all offenders convicted of homicide tied to domestic violence should be required to wear the device upon release as part of their correctional plan. As a result of pressure from Quebec, the matter has now made its way to Ottawa. I even had an opportunity to study the bill on the device at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women following pressure from Quebec. It was a recommendation in the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, on rebuilding trust in the justice system. Some progress has been made on advancing the issue in Ottawa through the work of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Following Marylène Levesque's murder, Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada reviewed their practices and adopted a series of measures to ensure better monitoring of offenders. However, the coroner ruled that this is not enough. It is not just a question of electronic bracelets, either. According to the coroner, the correctional plan of the murderer, Eustachio Gallese, should also be reviewed in order to identify what elements may have led to his lack of accountability.

This could help prevent another similar tragedy. In her report, coroner Gamache wrote that the comprehensive correctional intervention plan prepared for this offender was a resounding failure. Marylène Levesque's murder occurred less than a year after he was granted parole. At the time, Eustachio Gallese was on day parole for the 2004 murder of his ex-wife. His parole officer had given him permission to visit erotic massage parlours once a month, but in reality, according to the police investigation, he was going up to three times a week. In short, an electronic bracelet with geolocation would at least have made it possible to detect these lies and subterfuges and to take action before it was too late. That is what the coroner argued. This bracelet allows for better monitoring, but that is not all.

In conclusion, for all these reasons, this bill must be referred to committee. We need to go back to the drawing board and rise above partisanship. The Bloc Québécois intends to make a constructive contribution to this debate.

We have made a lot of progress in Quebec, and we have done a lot of thinking. I hope to have the opportunity to come back to this, but on Thursday evening, I celebrated the 50th anniversary of the community organization Joins-toi, which works to help people who have committed crimes re-enter society. Working to reintegrate people and offering them alternatives to the criminal lifestyle is an intrinsic value that we cherish in Quebec. At the event, we heard about all the progress that has been made thanks to the community and to dedicated stakeholders who believe in restorative justice. This is a model that Quebec has done a lot to develop. I would like to pay tribute to the entire Maison Joins-toi team. I hope that I will have another opportunity to commend its members and highlight their work, as I was able to do on Thursday on the occasion of this milestone anniversary.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to the justice committee. When we are seized with Bill C-21, we will look at those amendments, as I do share a concern around some of them.

It is one thing to say that we want Canadians to be safe. It is another thing to put in place the legislative measures to make sure that happens. I am committed to working with all parliamentarians, including the hon. member, to pass legislation that allows us to protect our streets, protect our communities and protect victims.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying that I have the pleasure of sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière.

Next, I want to quickly thank our Conservative friends. They have given us an amazing opportunity to expose their battle tactics. In my view, they have given us this opportunity far too early, to their own disadvantage. These tactics could prove to be their undoing. In summary, their strategy is to say the opposite of the truth or, to put it more bluntly, to lie.

The example of the firearms bill made that quite clear. The Conservatives brag like there is no tomorrow, but the removal of hunting rifles from Bill C-21 is due solely to the efforts of the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. To say otherwise would be a crude and vulgar lie.

The example of the emissions regulations is another good joke. We do not get to vote on regulations. Let everyone take note. However, true to form, relying on rather old-fashioned tactics, the Conservatives have cobbled together a motion containing one point and a whole lot of vitriol. Now they are saying that if we do not want the point, we have to swallow the vitriol. Obviously, we vote against these kinds of Conservative motions. That is the natural reflex of an intelligent person.

The carbon tax does not apply to Quebec. I am almost tempted to say it in English, so there will be a small chance that three people or so will understand me. The carbon tax does not apply to Quebec. Quebec has a carbon exchange. It is a cap-and-trade system that was negotiated by successive ministers of the environment. The minister of the environment who was in office when the system was introduced in 2013 is someone I know well. It is me.

I just want the Conservatives to know that their attack ads are not working on Quebeckers. They can make all the dumb little jokes they want and buy ad spots on television because their coffers are full, but it is not working on Quebeckers. The Conservatives do not realize it. What do they know about Quebec? They held a convention in Quebec City where they somehow managed to avoid talking about Quebec and adopted proposals that run counter to what Quebeckers want. The Conservative leader comes to Quebec once a year, but he wants people to think that he has a second home there.

It was a tactical error to do this so early and to tell these lies so early. I have a whole year to debunk these lies, expose these tactics and show that the Conservative leader is not worthy of Quebeckers' trust, whether he becomes prime minister or not.

Canadians are caught between a rock and a hard place. They are caught between right-wing activists and proponents of fake left-wing individualism. They are caught between the Conservatives and the Liberals. However, that is not the case in Quebec. In Quebec, Quebeckers have the Bloc Québécois. They may even have the balance of power without any risk. We vote for what is good for Quebec, whether it comes from the Conservatives or the Liberals. We vote against what is bad for Quebec. In the meantime, we try to improve what is presented.

Let us look at the contents of the latest narrow-minded Conservative propaganda motion. First, as I was saying, the Bloc Québécois did not support anything because we do not vote to pass regulations. As usual, the Conservatives cooked up a motion today to try to trick the House. We will vote against the motion again today because it is bad for Quebec.

Still, the Conservative leader has done us a favour. I am pleased because, in between buying a tight T-shirt and a pair of Ray-Bans, by attacking us, he is admitting that it is the Bloc Québécois that will prevent any party from having a majority in the House, as it did in 2019 and 2021.

When we are talking about these two parties, a majority spells bad news for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois has never asked for new taxes or an increase in taxes. That is untrue. That is on the Conservatives. It is fake news.

Yes, the cost of living is a concern. Gas prices are concerning. The cost of groceries is concerning. Costs for farmers are concerning, as are costs for truckers. The plight of seniors is concerning, or at least it is to us. However, none of that is because of the carbon tax in Quebec. It does not apply in Quebec.

There is a question I often want to ask the Conservatives. I want to know what their issue is with the truth. I will explain why things are so expensive. I will explain why the Conservative leader's wacky idea of imposing partisan Conservative rule on the central bank is a ridiculous idea.

Here is a number: $200 billion. That is how much the oil companies made in profits in 2022. I repeat: $200 billion. There are 11 zeros in that number. In Canada, there are 40 million people, including Quebeckers. Let us do the math. Let us remove seven zeros from the $200 billion. That adds up to $5,000 per capita in profits for the oil companies. That includes babies, seniors, everyone.

The Conservatives claim that fighting climate change is increasing the cost of living. That is false. It is big oil's despicable profits that are increasing the cost of living. That is $200 billion in 2022 alone, on the backs of farmers, seniors, truck drivers, families. They need to stop with the lies. They are just knock-off lobbyists for big oil.

The Liberals are no better. There is one group that lies and another that covers up, and the oil companies are profiting from the $200 billion in generous subsidies.

Neither one of these parties is working for the environment. Neither one of these parties is working for Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to work in good faith to keep Parliament running, even though some members are in campaign mode. We will continue to fight against inflation in a responsible and clean way. We will not put up with lies or deceit.

We will be voting against this motion. If the Conservatives or Liberals are looking for Quebec, if they are looking for the Bloc Québécois, they know where to find us.

Criminal Code

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, on calling us “crime rate deniers”, as I said in my speech, how is that productive in this discussion or in any other discussion? What kind of message does that send to Canadians? If she or any other member of the House think that anybody on this side of the House is soft on crime and wants bad guys out on the street, they are just wrong, and everybody knows it, so I ask the member stop saying it, please.

As for the weapons she is talking about, I was born and raised in Thunder Bay. I had my hunting licence when I was 16. Never in my life did anybody say, “Hey, can you hand me the AR-15.”

Bill C-21 is strong legislation. We worked hard, including with members on the opposite side of the House, some of whom are in this chamber right now. I am a hunter myself. I would never do anything that would in any way infringe on the rights of Canadians who are legally exercising their right to go hunting and engage in that sporting activity.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

One of the things my hon. colleague highlighted is the fact that what we are dealing with is really a small piece of the overall crime pie. The pie itself, and the difficulty that we are in, really lies with the Liberal Party, whether it be Bill C-75 from the last Parliament, Bill C-21 or Bill C-5. We now have sexual offenders or people who have committed serious gun crimes who can serve their sentence from the comfort of their home.

I would ask my hon. colleague this: How much further do we need to go, and is this going to help in a meaningful and significant way?

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

Mr. Speaker, it was I who said the words quoted by my colleague, whom I salute and also respect very much. I freely admit that it was me, but I was not talking about the list at that time. We were talking about the definition. We said that it was a good idea for the bill to define what was being prohibited.

The government cannot just prohibit whatever it wants. It must be specific. We wanted the bill to be even clearer. We were against the list. We worked so hard. Again, it was my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia who was working on it. It is a good thing she was there. Otherwise, if we had had to rely on our Conservative colleagues, Bill C-21 would have passed as is or would simply been defeated.

That said, I will come back to the bill. I am not surprised that the Conservatives are opposed to it. The Conservatives are against reintegration and rehabilitation. We have heard it many times. We saw it in committee, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for example, which I have sat on for some time. They are against that and, as I said earlier, they are against anything that does not come from their leader. I will not dwell on that too much.

I just want to reiterate that this bill is essential and that the issue of its constitutional validity will probably be raised in committee. Then we will see whether the bill has to be amended, but, yes, we will work to make sure it is passed quickly and comes into force as soon as possible. We need it, just as we need judges. I look forward to hearing the new Minister of Justice tell me, before Christmas, that he has filled all those positions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I started by saying that I wanted to congratulate the new Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary on their appointments. I will have the pleasure of working with them over the coming months and the coming years. I hope we can improve the lot of our people, in Quebec and in Canada, particularly in the area of criminal law.

It is no secret, as people have been saying for a while, that the Liberal government's lax attitude has allowed senseless situations to drag on. I find that unfortunate. I will come back to that.

I look this morning at what is happening with our colleagues in the official opposition and I find that just as unfortunate. What I see is that the official opposition is against everything, except the leader. They falsely claim that the Bloc Québécois supports the creation of a carbon tax when, contrary to the leader of the official opposition's claims, there is a carbon exchange in Quebec. We are not subject to the carbon tax.

For all kinds of good or bad reasons that are their own and that I do not wish to discuss, provinces have decided not to take part in a carbon exchange and prefer to see the carbon tax applied. That is a debate between the Prime Minister of western Canada, who invested in oil in order to be understood, and the leader of the official opposition. They can debate between themselves the rate at which they wish to impose the carbon tax but, in Quebec, we have a carbon exchange. However, the leader of the official opposition does not take that into account.

The leader of the official opposition says that it is thanks to him that hunting rifles were removed from Bill C‑21. We will have to reread the transcripts of the House and committees. The official opposition opposed Bill C‑21, just like it opposes anything that comes from anyone other than the leader of the Conservative Party.

Who worked on getting Bill C‑21 passed and getting rid of the lists that prohibited hunting rifles? It was us, the Bloc Québécois. It was my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia who stepped up to ensure that the original version of Bill C‑21 was not adopted. She did this extensive and exhausting work day and night for weeks and months. I commend her on that. I am truly grateful for her. The Conservatives kept filibustering to stop our work. It bothers them to see us work.

In the House, the Conservatives are prepared to say just about anything against the party in power, and against the Bloc Québécois and the NDP as opposition parties. I have not heard their thoughts on the Green Party, but I would not be surprised to hear the Conservative leader speak out against the Green Party. The Conservatives are against everything.

That is unfortunate, because there are some Conservatives I really respect. Some of them are excellent members, smart people who would be able to get things done and help us pass bills that would be good everyone and move Quebec and Canadian society forward. They are hamstrung, though. They have to support an ideological leader, a leader who is not interested in concessions and who is against any ideas but his own. What a shame. That is the Canada we are stuck with, and we, the people of Quebec, hope to get out of it ASAP.

Let us get back to Bill C‑48. It is not perfect by any means, but we have to take action. For years now, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the Liberals to make our streets safe and make things better for people in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Yes, the Conservatives supported us on that, but they were so incompetent and ideological about it, not to mention completely uninterested in compromise or discussion. It was unproductive and actually did more harm than good.

Yes, we have been fighting for that. We have been demanding it. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that having firearms in our streets is plain wrong, except in certain circumstances. I have no problem with armed police officers, but we do not want people walking around with illegal, restricted or prohibited firearms.

We have been asking the government to do something about this for a long time. Finally, today we have this bill. It was tabled last spring, just before the House rose for the summer, in late May or early June. I do not remember the exact date. Here we are, at any rate, with this bill before us today. It will not fix everything, but it somewhat does address the issue of offenders who are out on bail and who are not always adequately supervised.

I am more than willing to work on that, but that will not solve everything. It is only part of the problem. The real issue with firearms is that they go through the border as easily as going in and out of a Walmart.

We are asking for the creation of a joint task force to counter gun trafficking, made up of officers from the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, the OPP, the Akwesasne police service, or peacekeepers, and the American FBI. We believe we have to get serious about this because guns come in and out across the river and through Akwesasne's territory. The federal government does not seem to think it is that bad. Last year, Quebec invested $6 million to create a surveillance task force to patrol the river and stop gun trafficking. The federal government has done nothing while guns keep circulating. How many more files like this one is the government failing to act on?

Regarding bail, the issue is what we do with people who get arrested before they are found guilty or not guilty. Do we keep these people behind bars, or do we let them go with or without conditions? The bill is looking to get tough on crimes committed with restricted or prohibited firearms. Offenders will be automatically held in custody unless they can show that they pose no threat to society and that they can be set free until their trial. The onus is reversed, which seems to me like a good idea. We are going to get tough on people who carry firearms, who commit robberies for the purpose of stealing firearms or who engage in acts of intimate partner or interpersonal violence. This seems reasonable to me. However, again, the government has done nothing about gun trafficking.

Nothing has been done about the appointment of judges either. We know that the justice system in Quebec and Canada has had to operate under rules set by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision. Trials now have to take place within specific time frames. Are these time frames reasonable? The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has decided that they were, and I accept that.

Saying so is just the beginning, though. Judges have to be appointed if those trials are going to be held within the reasonable time frame set by the Supreme Court. If judges are not appointed, if the provinces do not get funding for better administration of justice, then we end up where we are now. There are no courtrooms. There are no clerks. There are no judges. What then? People are being released before their trial even starts. Has the Liberal government saved us from gun-related problems on our streets? I think not. On the contrary, I think the Liberal government has been negligent for years. As people were saying earlier, the Liberal Party has been in power for eight years, but it has been ignoring these problems for years.

The joint task force must be created. Arms trafficking must be stopped. Judges must be appointed. That seems pretty straightforward to me. A selection committee does the lion's share of the work. It sends a list of five or six names to the Minister of Justice, and the minister picks one. How can that possibly take months? Sooner or later, judges have to be appointed and the government has to transfer money to the provinces for the administration of justice. If that does not happen, we wind up where we are now.

People are saying that Bill C‑48 will solve the problem once it is passed, but it will not. It will solve part of the problem. It will deal with people who are released even though they should not be. The committee will rework the bill, and I am glad we have come this far, but I am really disappointed that this is as far as it goes.

I would like my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to tell us what he is going to do about judicial appointments. In the coming weeks, can we expect judges to be appointed and all vacant positions to be filled, not 10%, 50% or 80% of these positions?

That is all the federal government has to do. The administration of justice is a provincial responsibility. The only thing the federal government has to do is appoint judges. The other thing it has to do, in terms of substantive law, is to adopt the Criminal Code and amend it. Can it do some serious work on this?

I hope that my colleagues in the Conservative official opposition will finally stop filibustering and allow the work to unfold in committee. I hope it will not take 20 years to get Bill C‑48 passed. We will not be here 20 years from now. This Parliament has only a year or two left to run, at most. It is really sad to see the Conservatives keep griping that the Liberals are doing nothing, but then turn around and filibuster when the Liberals do try to do something. I want to get going on this issue. Back home, in Rivière‑du‑Nord, people are fed up with crime. So am I, and I am sure that the same is true everywhere, across both Quebec and Canada. We need to address the situation.

Section 515 of the Criminal Code currently provides that an accused or someone who is charged with an offence will be detained only if necessary to ensure their attendance in court, for the protection or safety of the public or to avoid undermining the public's confidence. These rules strike me as entirely reasonable and sensible.

However, now the government is going to modify these rules by saying that, in certain cases, such as crimes committed with firearms or involving the theft or manufacture of firearms, the crimes will trigger a reverse onus. In the future, the accused will have to prove that they are not a danger to society and that they can be released without fear of failing to return to court, presenting a threat to public safety or undermining public confidence.

I would like to dwell for a moment on the issue of undermining public confidence. It may seem trivial, but it is the basis of our democracy. If the people of Quebec and Canada no longer have confidence in the justice system, it opens up the possibility of serious disorder with lasting effects. I do not want to see people take the law into their own hands. We already have problems with people leaving hospitals without getting treatment because they are tired of waiting so long. They go home, which only makes their condition worse. The same thing must not happen with the justice system.

This is Parliament's job. We must ensure that the rules are reasonable and that everyone, or the vast majority at least, abides by them. We must ensure that the law is applied in a reasonable and satisfactory manner to prevent citizens from “revolting” against the justice system.

It is true that Bill C‑48 will provide a better framework for bail and ensure that people at risk of reoffending are not released back into society while awaiting trial. That said, judges must also be appointed to ensure that these trials are held. Whether or not someone is detained pending trial, if there is no trial, the work will all have been for naught. Judges need to be appointed, and trials need to be held within a reasonable time frame. I think that is just as important.

It is important to recognize that not all accused persons are guilty, as we have already discussed. This is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other statutes. There are rules to indicate that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Section 6 of the Criminal Code affirms this, as does section 15 of the charter and, implicitly, section 7.

The principle of presumption of innocence must be respected. There are countries where that is not the case, and I would not want to live in those places. I am happy to live here, in Quebec, which is unfortunately in Canada, but at least the same rules of presumption of innocence apply. As we often say, and as the courts have even affirmed, it is better that a guilty person go free than that an innocent person be imprisoned. This can be very discouraging because, for victims, the fact that a guilty person is out on the street makes no sense. However, that is the choice our society has made, and I am willing to accept and uphold that principle.

The decision to release an accused person must be taken very seriously. Bill C-48 seems reasonable to me, but, I as I said, trials must also be held. This requires judges and funding. Is my colleague, the new Minister of Justice, serious about this? Does he intend to do his job properly and appoint as many judges as it takes over the next few weeks to fill all the vacancies? I hope so.

In closing, Bill C‑48 responds to a request made by the 13 provincial and territorial premiers in January 2023. It is now September 2023. I know that things can sometimes take years. In this case, it did not take years because it is still 2023, but the bill has not yet been passed, and perhaps it never will be if my Conservative colleagues oppose it. Regardless, from January of one year to May of the following year is still a rather long time. The government could have acted more quickly, but I still applaud this decision.

I repeat that the Bloc Québécois will work seriously with the government any time its work supports Quebeckers' interests and values. I believe that Bill C-48 does just that, and we support it. We will see what happens after the bill is examined in committee, but we will support it.

However, that will not stop us from continuing to demand that this government get serious about appointing judges, among other things. It will also not stop us from asking our official opposition colleagues to stop obstructing the work of the House when a bill is in line with their interests and those of both their constituents and ours. We are asking the members of the official opposition to take their job seriously and to act responsibly.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister, the cost of living is going up because of an inflationary tax that the Bloc supports and that they want to drastically increase. The cost of living is also going up because of inflationary deficits.

It no longer pays to work and the cost of housing has doubled. The desperation that these policies have caused is leading to a crisis of homelessness, drug use and crime. That is the situation after eight years of this Prime Minister.

Today, we are rising in the House of Commons to talk about the utter chaos that the Prime Minister has unleashed on our streets with his changes to the bail system. He introduced Bill C-75, which was passed. That law allows criminals who have been charged dozens of times to be released on the very day they are arrested.

That bill was supported by the Bloc. Yes, voting for the Bloc is not worth the cost. A vote for the Bloc is a vote for Liberal policies that cause crime in our streets. What are the consequences of that Liberal-Bloc policy?

After eight years of this Prime Minister, violent crime has increased by 39% and homicides by 43%. Gang-related homicides are up 108%. Gun crime is up 101%. I will stop there for now. The Prime Minister thinks that fighting gun crime means banning hunters’ weapons. He stated in his comments that he wanted to ban firearms that are used for hunting. That is what he proposed in Bill C-21, to which he added 300 pages containing the list of hunting weapons he wanted to ban.

The Bloc Québécois was beyond happy, it was ecstatic. The Bloc said it wanted to adopt that list and that it had been waiting many years for this major ban on hunting weapons. Now the Bloc leader is trying to do an about-face, trying to make the people in Quebec's regions forget that the Bloc betrayed them with its agenda of banning hunting weapons. The Bloc Québécois also voted in favour of a law that allows criminals who use firearms to commit violent acts to return to our streets on the day they are arrested.

That approach did not work. We Conservatives will protect hunters and put the real criminals in prison. We will allocate resources to the border to prevent weapons from entering the country illegally from the United States.

Moreover, we see that assault causing bodily harm has increased 61%. Sex crimes against children increased 126% after eight years of this Prime Minister. Car thefts increased 34% after eight years of this Prime Minister.

This is the record of this government’s approach of freeing the most violent criminals while banning hunting weapons. This does not actually work. It does not make sense. That is why the Conservative Party is the only party in the House of Commons that had the common sense to oppose this and stand up for the rights of hunters. We are going to put criminals in prison and protect law-abiding citizens.

We know that the Conservative approach works, because when we were in power the crime rate decreased by 26%. We targeted the most violent and vicious criminals and made sure that repeat offenders were sent to prison. All the other parties said that this would increase the prison population. In fact, the number of prisoners decreased by 4.3%. There were fewer people in prison and less crime on our streets. In addition, we were able to eliminate the gun registry to protect our hunters.

Our approach works because by targeting the most violent criminals and denying their release to prevent them from committing the same crimes again, we can protect society and deter crime by others. We will take that common-sense approach again when I am prime minister of Canada.

Today, we have a bill that partly reverses the damage that the Prime Minister has caused. We all know that after eight years of the Prime Minister, life costs more, work does not pay, housing costs have doubled, and crime, chaos, drugs and disorder are common in our streets. We know that his policy of freeing repeat violent offenders the same day they are arrested came to us in Bill C-75, supported by both Liberals and their coalition partners. In fact, the NDP wanted to go even further.

What are the consequences of their catch-and-release policy? Violent crime is up 39%. Homicide is up 43%. Gang killings are up 108%. Aggravated assault is up 24%. Assault with a weapon causing bodily harm is up 61% increase. Sexual assault is up 71%. Sex crimes against kids is up 126%. Kidnapping is up 36%. Car thefts are up 34%. These crimes are almost always committed by a very small minority.

The good news is that we do not have a lot of criminals in Canada. The bad news is they are very productive. They are allowed to be productive because of the catch-and-release policies passed in Bill C-75 that allow an offender to be arrested often within hours of their latest crime. In Vancouver, the police had to arrest the same 40 offenders 6,000 times, because the police and the system required them to be released under the Prime Minister's bill, Bill C-75.

The bill before us today partly and modestly reverses the catch-and-release bail system that the Prime Minister created, but it does not go far enough. Our policy is very clear. A common-sense Conservative government led by me will bring in jail and not bail for repeat violent offenders. Those offenders with a long rap sheet who are newly arrested will be in our jails today.

When we brought in policies of this sort under the previous Conservative government, we not only reduced crime by 25%, but we actually reduced incarceration rates. That was against all of the rhetoric of the radical left that said that we would have to build mega prisons to accommodate all the criminals. In fact, our laws were narrowly targeted at the worst repeat offenders and they scared the rest of the criminals away. We actually had fewer criminals, less crime and, therefore, fewer prisoners. That meant safer streets.

The Prime Minister has unleashed a crime wave over the last several years.

I was just in Whitehorse yesterday at Antoinette's restaurant. The owner told me that his restaurant had been robbed 12 times in 18 months, multiple times by the same offender who was released again and again. In fact, police officers told him they were going to stop arresting the offender because it was not worth the time of having him arraigned and being released almost immediately. It was easier and more cost-effective to just leave the thief on the streets and let him do his business.

That is how broken our criminal justice system is after eight years of the Prime Minister. Now he has appointed a radical justice minister who says that crime is all in the heads of Canadians, that their imaginations have gone wild. However, the data proves otherwise.

It turns out that Canadians and Conservatives are right. A common-sense Conservative government will fix the mess the Liberals made. It will fix what is broken with jail and not bail. Now, let us bring it home.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-48.

As this is my first time rising in this chamber as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I want to first thank the Prime Minister for placing his confidence in me and appointing me to this position. I want to thank the constituents of Parkdale—High Park for their faith in me over the past three elections. I look forward to continuing to earn their support in this new role. I also want to thank my parents and my sister for always empowering me to dream, and I want to thank my wife and children for supporting me in realizing my dreams.

There is another person in this chamber without whose work I could not be engaging in this, and that is the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. The work he has done over the past four and a half years has made Canada a better place and the justice system more fair. His work will continue to inspire me in the work that I do in this role.

Lastly, I want to congratulate my parliamentary secretary, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I have the pleasure of having him as a riding neighbour in Toronto, and I am very excited to work with this excellent lawyer and parliamentarian to improve Canada's justice system.

Bill C-48 will strengthen Canada's bail laws to address the public's concerns relating to repeat violent offending and offences involving firearms and other weapons. It is a response to direct requests we have received from provinces, territories and law enforcement.

I know that these issues are of top concern for all parties in this chamber and indeed all Canadians. I look forward to seeing everyone in this chamber, across party lines, help pass this bill quickly in order to make Canadians safer. We have heard support for this package from provincial and territorial counterparts across the country of all political stripes as well as municipal leaders, police and victim organizations.

I want to begin by expressing my sincere condolences to the families of those we have lost recently in senseless killings. My mind turns to the family of Gabriel Magalhaes who was fatally stabbed at a subway station in my very own riding of Parkdale—High Park. The country mourns with them. This violence is unacceptable and we cannot stand for it. Canadians deserve to be safe in their communities from coast to coast to coast.

As a father, I am personally concerned about crime and violence. I want to make sure that my two boys are protected, as are all Canadian families. That is one of my goals as justice minister. This bill will help advance that goal.

Our government is working to ensure that these crimes cannot be repeated, which means tackling crime as well as what causes crime. We are the party of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians expect laws that both keep them safe and respect the rights that are entrenched in the charter. In Bill C-48, we have struck that important balance. This legislation recognizes the harms posed by repeat violent offenders and would improve our bail system to better reflect this reality.

I will take a moment to remind my colleagues about the values we hold on this side of the House. Public safety is paramount for our Liberal government. This means ensuring that serious crimes will always have serious consequences. It also means improving mental health supports and social services that will prevent crime in the first place and help offenders to get the support or treatment they need to reintegrate safely into communities after they have served their sentence. We believe that investing in our communities ensures safety in the long term.

I was dismayed by the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in the spring. He would rather engage in fearmongering for political gain instead of doing what is right: coming up with real solutions. He advocates for measures that would limit Canadians' charter rights. He points fingers instead of acknowledging the root causes of crime. The Leader of the Opposition has ignored evidence; he has voted against progress. I am dismayed, but I am not surprised. The Conservative approach to criminal justice has been short-sighted. We cannot return to Harper-era policies of clogged prisons, court delays, wasted resources and increased recidivism.

However, I was heartened to hear the Leader of the Opposition, on August 18, just about a month ago, say, “I am happy to bring back Parliament today and will pass bill reform by midnight” tonight. Well, Parliament is back. We are here. I am willing to put in the work to have this bill pass by midnight tonight. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will stay true to his word and is ready to do the same along with his caucus colleagues. Premiers around the country want this. Police around the country want this. Canadians around the country want this. Let us get this done; the clock is ticking.

What are the specific measures we are speaking about in Bill C-48? According to existing Canadian law, bail can be denied in three circumstances: to ensure the attendance of the accused in court, to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Justice ministers across Canada agree that the bail system functions properly in most cases. However, at the same time, we heard there are challenges with the bail system when it comes to repeat violent offenders. Circumstances change and our justice system should reflect those changes. We are always open to making the system better. When we see a problem, we act. That is what Bill C-48 is about.

The targeted reforms in this bill would improve bail in five regards, as follows: first, by enacting a new reverse onus for repeat violent offending involving weapons; second, by adding certain firearms offences to the provisions that would trigger a reverse onus; third, by expanding the current intimate partner violence reverse onus, fourth, by clarifying the meaning of a prohibition order for the purpose of an existing reverse onus provision; and last, by adding new considerations and requirements for courts regarding the violent history of an accused and community safety.

Let me start, first of all, with the newly proposed reverse onus. A reverse onus at bail starts with a presumption that an accused person will be detained pending trial unless they can show why they should be released. The onus is on the accused. It sends a strong message to the courts that Parliament believes bail should be harder to get when there is an increased risk to public safety or because a release in these cases would undermine confidence in the system. Importantly, the decision and the discretion to deny bail rests with the courts, which are best placed to make such determinations.

This new reverse onus would apply in the following situations: when violence was used, threatened or attempted with the use of a weapon in the commission of the offence; when the offence is punishable by a sentence of 10 or more years in prison; and when the accused has been charged with another offence that meets these criteria in the past five years.

Bill C-48 targets repeat violent offending. My provincial and territorial counterparts and the police have told us this is what we need to address. We are delivering in terms of that specific request.

The new reverse onus targets the use of dangerous weapons. What am I speaking about? I am talking about firearms, knives and bear spray, which I know has been a particularly acute problem in the prairie provinces, thus the direct ask that was made of me and my predecessor.

In the second category, we are cracking down on firearms offences. Bill C-48 would create a reverse onus for additional indictable firearms offences. When the premiers of the country came together in January and wrote to the Prime Minister, they said a reverse onus was needed on unlawful possession of a loaded or easily loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. This bill would deliver that.

On top of what they asked us for in January, we added additional provisions. Those are if one is charged with breaking and entering to steal a firearm, if one is involved in a robbery to steal a firearm and if one is charged with making an automatic firearm. In all those additional instances, the onus would be reversed, which would make bail much more difficult to receive.

Gun crime is a serious threat to public safety. We heard this from coast to coast to coast in this country. We heard about this in this chamber. We have seen too many lives lost and innocent people hurt because of guns. Our government knows when a gun is involved the risk is so much greater. That is why we are expanding the reverse onus provisions to make it harder to get bail in those circumstances.

These reforms respond directly to the calls of the 13 premiers across this country, some who share my political party stripe, many who share the Speaker's and Conservative Party's political stripe, and some who share the NPD's political stripe. What is important is it is a multipartisan approach. The reforms also reflect the perspectives of law enforcement partners to make bail more onerous for accused persons charged with serious firearms offences.

My third category is that this bill would strengthen the existing reverse onus that applies to accused persons charged with an offence involving intimate partner violence where they have a previous conviction for this type of offence. As members may recall, this particular reverse onus was enacted through former Bill C-75, which received royal assent in June 2019. It makes it more difficult for an accused person to get bail where a pattern of violence against an intimate partner is being alleged. The goal is to provide further protection to victims from the escalating nature of this type of violence. Our Liberal government, under the direct leadership of the Prime Minister, has always taken the issue of intimate partner violence seriously and will continue to protect victims of such violence.

The fourth key element of this bill is that it clarifies the meaning of a prohibition order at the bail stage.

Right now, the reverse onus applies at the bail stage when a person has allegedly committed a firearm-related offence while subject to a firearms prohibition order.

The bill clearly states that the reverse onus will also apply in cases of bail orders that carry a condition prohibiting the accused from being in possession of firearms or other weapons. This amendment serves to strengthen the existing reverse onus provision by making it clearer and easier to apply.

The final key proposal among the group of five that I mentioned at the outset relates to what considerations a court must make and take when deciding whether to release someone on bail. In 2019, the former Bill C-75 amended the Criminal Code to provide that before making a bail order, courts must consider any relevant factor, including the criminal record of the accused or whether the charges involved intimate partner violence. That very provision would now be expanded to expressly require courts to consider whether the accused's criminal record includes a history of convictions involving violence. This would help strengthen public confidence and public safety, because bail courts would now be specifically directed to consider whether the accused has any previous violent convictions and whether they represent an increased risk of reoffending even when the proposed reverse onuses do not apply.

The bail provisions would be further amended to require a court to state on the record that it considered the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence. Let me repeat that: This bill, once it passes, and indeed I hope it passes today, would require a court to state on the record that it considered the safety and security of the community in relation to the alleged offence when making a bail order. That is listening to communities and responding to their needs directly through parliamentary action. It would complement the current requirement that the court consider the safety and security of any victim.

This amendment would address specific concerns I have heard from municipalities, indigenous communities, racialized communities and marginalized communities. Our collective safety matters critically in bail decisions. This is an important change. Members of small rural communities have told us that the release of an accused on bail can have significant implications for their residents. This change would require the courts to explicitly consider the wishes of those very communities.

It is our government's responsibility to ensure that legislative measures are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am confident that the proposed measures are compliant. More information is provided in the charter statement for this bill, which is available on the Justice Canada website.

I am deeply committed to ensuring that any measures taken in the chamber by this Parliament would not exacerbate the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black and racialized persons in our criminal justice system. We must not further marginalize and disadvantage vulnerable people, including those struggling with poverty, homelessness and mental health and substance use issues.

The government is committed to addressing systemic discrimination in Canada's criminal justice system. I believe that the approach taken in this bill, which makes narrow but important changes, is evidence of that.

The measures proposed in the bill are the result of extensive collaboration among federal, provincial and territorial governments. Members may be aware that the previous ministers of justice and of public safety convened an urgent meeting on March 10 of this year with their provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss ways to strengthen the bail system. This was a productive meeting. The ministers agreed that law reform was necessary but was only part of the solution. The provinces and territories expressed willingness to take action in various areas themselves, including improved data collection, policies, practices, training and programs in the area of bail support and bail enforcement.

I am very encouraged by the efforts by these provincial and territorial partners that are already taking place to improve the bail system in Canada. They are our partners in this issue. They will be our partners in rendering Canada more safe. For example, Ontario and Manitoba have announced commitments to enhance bail compliance measures, among other things, to increase public safety and to address concerns posed by those engaged in repeat violent offending. In British Columbia, the premier has also stepped up and made significant investments to strengthen enforcement and improve interventions in relation to repeat violent offending. I believe that any criminal law reform enacted by Parliament will be even more effective because of such actions taken by the provinces I have just listed, and I am hoping that every province follows suit.

The position I am taking and pronouncing here in the chamber, which is entrenched in Bill C-48, is backed up by law enforcement. Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, said this on this very issue:

We also see the federal government's tabling of Bill C-48 in June as a good first step, but this cannot be the only solution. Provincial and territorial governments must now look at their own justice systems and make needed improvements. Our justice system is complex with many interrelated challenges and flaws that cannot be addressed through legislation alone.

Apart from the Criminal Code reform, our government is also fighting crime through non-legislative means. For example, the Minister of Public Safety announced $390 million in funding to help fight gangs and gun crime. This kind of funding will support provincial government initiatives related to the bail system and will complement our efforts to crack down on firearms through Bill C‑21.

Ultimately, we all have a role to play in keeping our communities safe. I would be remiss not to acknowledge the dedication and service of law enforcement personnel across our country in doing exactly that: protecting the safety of our communities, sometimes jeopardizing their own personal safety in doing so.

We are pleased that the police associations across the country have come out in support of Bill C-48. This past weekend, in my very own riding of Parkdale—High Park, I hosted the Toronto chief of police, Myron Demkiw, for a festival. He personally expressed to me his hope that Bill C-48 would become law as soon as possible. When I told him it would be debated first thing on Monday, he said, “Dyakuyu”, which means “thank you” in Ukrainian.

We have also discussed bail in meetings with representatives from national indigenous organizations. Their views were and continue to be welcomed. This helps us to better understand what is needed in relation to criminal justice system reform and keeping all communities safe.

Our government takes cases of repeat violent offending and offences involving firearms or other weapons very seriously. Our goal of protecting public safety and victims plays a major role in our analysis of how the bail system operates and whether it is performing as planned.

Bill C-48 demonstrates our commitment to taking action at the federal level to strengthen the bail system in response to the challenges raised over the past several months. Provinces, territories and law enforcement have all lauded this legislation. They come from political parties of varying stripes. This is not a partisan issue. It is about safety, and it is now our turn to pass this bill swiftly.

I started off by acknowledging some people who have been important in my life, and I want to return to that message right now. I talked about my parents and my sister. When those three people and I came here from Uganda as refugees in 1952, we were fleeing the persecution of General Idi Amin. We came here for one thing above all else: safety. We came here because Canada offered that safety and the prospect of a better life. That concern remains alive and well 51 years later for me and everyone who has the ability, honour and privilege of calling this country home. We have the ability today to do something that promotes and advances safety. I hope we can all do it co-operatively and collegially, and can get this done today.

Online News Act

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

The NDP-Liberal coalition has been as sly as a fox and as slippery as an eel with this piece of legislation known as Bill C-18, the online news act. This is yet another Liberal attempt to control the online content available to the people of Canada. The government will pick winners and losers among our various media outlets with this faulty legislation if it passes.

When this bill was before our House of Commons' standing committee in December, the government cut off hearing from witnesses who wished to voice their concerns about the fairness for media outlets. These witnesses and media stakeholders who wanted to put forward their concerns were simply shut down. After hastily being pushed through the standing committee, Bill C-18 came back to this place, where the censoring Liberals called time allocation after just three hours and 20 minutes of debate. What utter disregard for the many journalists and media outlets whose livelihoods will be weighed in the balance should this law pass.

The NDPs who supported the Liberals, when their blushing brides wanted to rob witnesses of the opportunity to testify at committee, backed them again by shutting debate down and rushing to get this bill passed here and sent off to the Senate. This is what we have seen time and time again with these partners in crime when it comes to legislation that supports their socialist agenda.

Legacy socialist legislation, like Bill C-11, Bill C-21 or Bill C-35, routinely gets pushed through this House with no regard for the views of stakeholders, ordinary Canadians and the opposition party.

What is wrong with Bill C-18, one might ask? Why are we using our resources to oppose this legislation? How is it bad for the Canadian public? How is it bad for small and local and ethnic media? How is it bad for journalists who want to maintain their independence?

I will tell us a little bit about that.

While this bill was in our House standing committee, the Liberals' court jester, the Minister of Heritage, deceived the committee with fake stats. He claimed that news outlets are destined for extinction. He cited a study that showed that 400 news outlets had closed since 2008. The conniving part of this testimony was that he left out a very important piece, also outlined in that same report, which was that hundreds of new outlets had opened during that exact same period, yet the jester claims that this bill is about supporting local media and building a fair news ecosystem. Nothing can be further from the truth.

This bill will favour darlings of the costly coalition like the CBC. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that more than 75% of the money generated by this bill will go to large corporations like Bell, Rogers and the CBC, leaving less than 25% for newspapers. Very little of that will be left over for local and ethnic media after big newspaper businesses take the lion's share of that 25%.

According to the PBO, the Liberal claim that this bill will help sustain local newspapers and ethnic media is completely false.

That is why Conservatives tried to fix this grave injustice at committee but the NDP-Liberal coalition, and the Bloc, voted against the amendment.

Conservative senators tried to amend this bill to stop state-backed broadcasters like the CBC from competing with private broadcasters and publications for this limited money when they already receive secure funding from taxpayers' dollars.

According to the PBO, this bill would generate $320 million, and of that amount, $240 million would go to the big broadcasters: CBC, Bell and Rogers. They would be entitled to more resources than they can possibly use, to help them increase their market share, while smaller outlets like the Toronto Star could disappear, heaven forbid.

Bill C-18 is another greasy attempt at online censorship. It walks hand in hand with Bill C-11. The other place sent this bill back to this place with amendments made by its independent senators, while amendments proposed by Conservative senators have been completely disregarded. Witnesses at the Senate committee painted a grim picture for most journalism in Canada, but that testimony was disrespected and trashed, along with the amendments that arose from it. The Liberal government is determined to control what we see online. According to witnesses from The Globe and Mail, News Media Canada, La Presse, Le Devoir, CANADALAND, The Line, and Village Media, this bill would create enormous risk for the independence of the press, for the bottom line of news outlets and for the future of digital media across this country.

The government has disguised its eagerness to control what news can be shared online with its appearance to want to straighten out big tech, like Facebook and Google, and to protect small media. Does that sound familiar? The same Minister of Canadian Heritage used these exact same tactics with Bill C-11 by touting his protection of Canadian content; however, at the same time, he cut small media's global revenue streams.

The government is enlisting the help of the CRTC to determine what is news and what is not. When something is created to share information about something new, otherwise known as “news”, it would be up to the CRTC whether it can be seen online in this country. Who asked for this bill? Legacy media asked for this bill, and the Liberal government has responded. The bunch on that side of the House will make sure that their story, their narrative, their agenda and their propaganda get out, and that opposing viewpoints are silenced. That is what this is all about. The government will use this legislation to choose winners and losers in the information world, and if it does not match its socialist agenda, news will not see the light of day. Good journalists and independent news media risk falling by the wayside if this legislation receives royal assent.

Conservatives will fight censorship and stand up for freedom of the press, which is now much broader than what it once encompassed. This is a new world, and a new approach is required to fight censorship. Censorship can be easily enacted in the online world without anyone ever suspecting it. On this side of the House, we stand for freedom and for protecting the public from legislation which would restrict the news content they would see. This bill to protect legacy broadcasters would drastically impact what news Canadians can see online, and Conservatives will not go on the record as supporting it. Censorship is censorship, however one slices it, and I will not vote for a bill that supports it in any way.

To conclude my remarks, my thoughts are with my colleague from Lethbridge, who, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of my colleagues, has been censored. She has been treated unfairly. It rushed to my mind as I was speaking so much about censorship. Hopefully, my colleague will receive justice.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing. Time and time again, we have seen the NDP sell out its core values on a number of pieces of legislation in order to keep this coalition government going.

I can completely understand why the NDP does not want to face the voters at this time, but the fact is that eventually it is going to be held accountable and the people are going to have to decide whether or not this coalition that the NDP has formed with the Liberal government is something that they will support.

In my constituency, we have been getting calls because people cannot get through to the office of the NDP member for Edmonton Griesbach. The line has been down for over a month now, and they wanted to talk to him about Bill C-21 and about how upset they were about it. They actually had to come to my office to try to get any answers.

Clearly, what we need is a member in Edmonton Griesbach who is going to stand up for their constituents. I know my great friend Kerry Diotte would be a great person for that job.

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

Madam Speaker, I too have enjoyed my time at the public safety committee with the member.

What one member calls “stalling” is what I call “democracy”, because when the government is doing something that is so offside with what Canadians want, it is the duty of all parliamentarians to use whatever means necessary to ensure either that the legislation is defeated or that it is amended in such way as to remove the offending parts of that legislation. We saw that very clearly with the debate on Bill C-21 and how the strong opposition from Conservative members of Parliament did lead to some significant changes to the legislation by the government. That is democracy in action. What one member calls “stalling”, I would call “democracy in action”.

On this bill in particular, what we support is the spirit of the bill. What I want to make sure is that the government members actually enforce the provisions they are trying to give themselves the power on.

Public Safety

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in town, so why will he not stand and answer these questions?

The minister has misled Canadians before. He has said at least 11 times that law enforcement requested the Emergencies Act; that was false. He said that Bill C-21 was not going to ban guns used by hunters and farmers; that was false. He said that Chinese police stations in Canada had been shut down; that was false.

Canadians have lost confidence in the minister. Will he do the honourable thing and just resign?

Justice and Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to be speaking to the travesty of justice and human rights committed by our current Minister of Public Safety. I am disappointed, but to be honest, I am not surprised. This minister has a track record of mishandling files, which is ultimately a disservice to justice in this country and to victims. This is why we are debating the amendment put forward by the Conservative Party today, ultimately recommending that the minister resign.

Just so it is clear and on the record once again, our amendment to the motion includes:

the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Monday, April 17, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Minister of Public Safety immediately resign given his total lack of consideration for victims of crime in his mishandling of the transfer to more cozy arrangements of one of the worst serial killers in Canadian history, that this unacceptable move has shocked the public and created new trauma for the families of the victims and that the Minister of Public Safety's office knew about this for three months prior to Paul Bernardo's transfer and instead of halting it, the information was hidden from the families.

Obviously, I have made some very provocative statements, even in my opening couple of sentences, but I want to lay the groundwork for why I believe this. Let us go back to the minister's track record back in August 2021, when he was the minister of immigration. What happened then? We had the fall of Kabul. We had the fall of Afghanistan.

Instead of the government dealing with that situation with the ministers of foreign affairs, immigration and national defence primarily focused on helping victims, the Afghans who had helped Canada, get to safety, what did they do? They called an election. It is unacceptable.

This minister here was in that seat. He could have had a process in place, much like we have done in previous years, under the current and previous governments, so that, when we have a situation around the globe in which Canada could make a difference by allowing refugees and people at risk to get to Canada, we could do it.

This is so fundamentally important and unfortunately something that the government is still not putting the adequate priority and focus on. It is allowing bureaucracy and staff to interfere with getting the job done. That is just one thing. That is the minister's background right off the get-go.

He has now been the Minister of Public Safety since that last election. What did we see just in the last year alone on Bill C-21? Again, we saw a minister who is not focused on victims and justice but is instead focused on law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and farmers, despite him saying that, no, this was not what the bill was about. Lo and behold, there was a last-minute amendment put forth by the minister that exactly targeted the thousands and thousand of hunters, sport shooters and farmers across the country.

That bill was not focused on addressing the root causes of the justice issues that allow for criminals, mass murderers, rapists, gangs, drug trafficking, etc. It was focused again on the wrong demographic.

I am just using that to set the stage. We are now dealing with an amendment because we now have evidence that the minister and his office were aware three months prior to the general public becoming aware that Paul Bernardo, one of our most horrific serial killer and rapists, was being transferred out of a maximum security prison into a medium security prison.

I want to set the stage because we are all victims of our life experiences. We live in a Westminster system of government that allows our democracy to work on a day-to-day basis because it is all about ministerial accountability. The buck stops with them.

As for my comments on life experiences, as many members know, I come from a military background. There is a misperception out there that the military is all about following orders. That is not the case at all and is not how the military functions. Forming a plan begins from the ground up, from the lowest levels all the way to the highest levels, enabling the decision-makers to make the best decisions possible.

When I served at the higher levels, whether as a chief of staff or a director, and we were planning for stuff and doing things, there was one common theme, and that was the daily briefs. It did not matter if it was on operations overseas or here at our Canadian Joint Operations Command, there were daily briefs and the staff's primary role was to flag issues of concern directly to the decision-makers, the commanders and people who are ultimately responsible for making decisions and providing guidance and direction. This was not being blocked by the gatekeepers or the staff, and it was brought to the person in charge. That is key to the way our whole democracy works.

Members do not have to take my word for it. There was a CBC report that basically broke this news. I am going to read a bit from a CBC article that was just released, which states:

The demand for [the Minister of Public Safety’s] exit was prompted by the CBC's report that staff in the minister's office were aware of Paul Bernardo's pending transfer as far back as March 2. Subsequent reporting confirmed that the Prime Minister's Office was also made aware in March and [the Prime Minister] was himself briefed on the transfer on May 29.

According to the version of events, the minister's staff obviously did not think it was necessary to tell him about the transfer of one of Canada's most notorious murderers until May 30, a day after the move was made, and a day after the Prime Minister himself was briefed. The fact that they neglected to alert the minister about this impending transfer is puzzling in and of itself, and obviously an apparent failure at keeping him informed. However, what is more interesting is that the minister himself described it as a shocking event. How could he be so shocked when this was something his staff should have informed him of three months prior?

The minister initially said it was the Correctional Service of Canada that did it, but he has now admitted that the information flowed in, he was not briefed, and could not have really done anything about it. Lo and behold, what has he done now? He has issued a new directive stipulating that he must be informed, something he should have done immediately. That is just common practice.

Therefore, the issue I come back to is this: The minister needs to surround himself with competent staff and people who understand what is truly an important issue under his responsibility because that is how we protect our justice system and victims in this country. Ultimately, the minister needs to do the honourable thing and resign because that is truly the only option left. If he will not resign, the Prime Minister should fire him.

Another thing the government should do is immediately implement the private member's motion that was put forward by the Conservative member for Niagara Falls, which enshrines into legislation, and I am paraphrasing, that when our most notorious murderers and criminals are found guilty, they must remain in a maximum-security prison.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his years of work on the issues of safety and improving safety throughout Canada.

I can share with him the fact that when I came here, 23 years ago, one of my issues was very much the issue of crime and safety.

I, too, lost a cousin who was an OPP officer in a terrible shooting. The results for the individual who performed the shooting were, I felt, very insignificant. I have talked a lot about these issues. I think they matter a lot to all of us as parliamentarians. At the same time, as we move forward, there is always the issue of being responsible and having to be responsible in how we bring in laws and how we enforce them and that we have to also make sure that we are considering everything, including the victims.

I would like to say to the hon. member, as we move forward, that many of us share concerns about how we improve safety, whether we are talking about Bill C-21, guns and knives or all of the rest of it.

Basic safety is critically important and I would like to look at how we can work better together to improve the judicial system and our laws and orders, and find answers.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, those families are suffering again because of the inaction of the government.

The minister makes an art form of spreading misinformation. He said CSIS did not inform him that Beijing was targeting an MP, that Chinese-run police stations were closed and that Bill C-21 did not target hunting rifles. That was false, false and false. Now he says he did not know that Paul Bernardo was transferred to medium security. He has known since March.

Canadians deserve a public safety minister who tells the truth. This one, who threatens our safety with his deceptions, should resign.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is not the final arbiter of trust. It is Canadians. We are working hard every single day to protect public safety.

We have introduced Bill C-21, which will take AR15-style guns out of our communities. The Conservatives want to make those types of guns legal again.

My colleague refers to the so-called police stations. The RCMP has repeatedly confirmed that it has taken disruptive action to stop foreign interference in relation to those so-called police stations.

On the matter of Paul Bernardo, there is an internal review. We are working with the families. We will always stand up for victims' rights.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, to eradicate gun violence, we need strong laws and strong borders and strong prevention. We are rolling out a $250-million “building safer communities” fund to address the root causes that my colleague talks about.

However, I also want to call on the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada to free his Conservative senators and free the bill. Bill C-21 is in the Senate right now. We need to read it, debate it and pass it into law so that we can save lives. It is only the Conservatives who continue to stand in the way of this legislation. All other four parties in this House passed it. Let us save lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 was designed to be part of a larger solution to mitigating gun violence here in Canada. We know that banning handguns was one part of the solution, but we also know that preventive measures can have a major impact on gun violence.

Our government is investing resources into supporting programs and working with young people to prevent them from getting involved in crime at a young age. Can the minister please share with this House some of the steps we are taking to invest in preventive programs and services directly aimed at young people?

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has respected the long-standing traditions of the House. We have even seen in this session of Parliament the government filibustered its own legislation at committee on Bill C-21.

I am not in a position to respond to that. Our track record as a party demonstrates the fact that we respect the traditions of the House and work at compromise. We have worked with the 100 and some-odd years of our Westminster parliamentary tradition, which has served us so well. I advocate using that going forward.

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-33 this evening.

My folks always taught me that nothing good happens after midnight, and I want to remind the handful of my colleagues who are still with us and the fewer still who are awake that is it is only 11:50 p.m. and we will be wrapped up by midnight. What better way to spend the waning minutes of our evening together than with another speech on legislation that the Liberal government has brought forward?

This legislation was an opportunity. We have had two reviews: the Railway Safety Act review and the ports modernization review. We had a chance, and we still do, actually, to do something about the issues at our ports. We have critical issues with our supply chains and border security. However, with this legislation, as with many other bills, the Liberal government has missed the point. It does not matter what the problem is; the Liberal government only seems to ever have two solutions. It only has two clubs in its bag. One is to spend more money and the other is to add more government, or a combination of both, actually; there is probably a third option.

Rather than do what is best for Canadians and for businesses, the Liberal government always does what is best for itself. It seems that the best thing for the government is always more government, more power, more control. The bigger government gets, the more pervasive it gets and the hungrier it gets, until it desires to control every aspect of the economy, industry and people, and the very words we say and the very thoughts we think. It is this need to control that has led, at least in part, to the multiple crises we are facing today, including issues with our supply chains, railroads, ports and border security.

Let us go back a couple of years. Governments across the country, including the Liberal government, put in many restrictions during COVID that shut our economy down. They rigged their economies so that wealthy Liberal insiders and big businesses were able to get richer. The big box stores could stay open while mom-and-pop businesses and local businesses across Canada were forced to shut their doors. They borrowed and printed hundreds of billions of dollars and pumped this new money into the economy, creating unnecessary debt and fuelling inflation, which is now resulting in higher interest rates and an affordability crisis.

Through these policies, the government consolidated dependency on government and made government, rather than industry, the central driving force of our economy. Fast-forward to today, and the same disastrous economic policies, policies that the government continues to double down on, have led to crippling inflation, a cost of living crisis for Canadians and higher interest rates, and we are on the verge of a housing crisis.

These same COVID-era policies have crippled our government's ability to execute and provide the most basic functions of government, and the same disastrous policies have pretty much destroyed our supply chains. This is a Canadian problem now, and it is a problem the Liberal government has created through its policies. Government has caused it. It has been perpetuated on us, and it will continue to be that way.

As I said before, the government always seems to have two solutions, more money or more government, or a combination of the two. That brings us to Bill C-33. When I look at this legislation, a few words keep coming up in my mind. First is “government gatekeepers”, and the other words are “more red tape”. The legislation provides a lot of measures to make it easier for government to control things. What it does not do is make things work better, smoother, faster or more cost effectively, while still focusing on safety.

Let us start off by looking at our ports. The legislation adds new layers of red tape and reporting requirements that will make us less efficient and less competitive. There is no great shock here, but smaller ports will be hit harder than the big ones. Whether it is mom-and-pop businesses during COVID or our ports, with the Liberal government, the little guy always gets whacked and loses out. The Liberal government has stacked the deck against the common folk, because it thinks Ottawa politicians and bureaucrats know better than the people on the ground.

New regulations will add to the cost of doing business, which means businesses will have no choice but to pass on those costs to consumers who already cannot afford what they are paying now. Advisory committees and ministerial interference will mean that the ports have less of a say in their day-to-day operations and fewer opportunities to make operational changes that might actually make things more efficient.

The people who know best are usually the people on the front lines. These are the ones who are most impacted by day-to-day operations and often have the best perspective. However, in the minister's plan, those who are tenants of the ports do not even have a seat at the table and have no representation on the advisory committee.

In short, this bill fails to establish that decisions are made in the best interests of our economy and supply chains, choosing instead to keep our ports tangled up in red tape and confusion.

Again there was the potential here, an opportunity for parliamentarians and stakeholders to work together. As for border enforcement, we are all for that. If it is about streamlining, making things run more smoothly and more cost effectively, Conservatives are all over that. If it is about getting cheaper goods, particularly food, to Canadians faster, where is the “yes” button? Instead, we see the government adding more gatekeepers. In the case of our ports and borders, the Liberal government adds more gatekeepers.

The bill is a missed opportunity to provide for the certainty and clarity needed to modernize our ports and supply chains and, by extension, to ensure stability of prices and availability for Canadian consumers.

I would like to shift gears briefly and talk about another aspect of the bill, and that is the provisions for rail safety.

First of all, there is the hypocrisy of the government that went so far as to enact the Emergencies Act on a group of peaceful truckers who just wanted to be able to do their jobs. We can juxtapose that with 2020, when we had groups of individuals blockading our rail lines, setting them on fire and blocking ports, all in violation of a court order, and holding up a construction project that 20 elected first nation councils had approved, a project that should have brought 9,500 jobs, many of them to our indigenous people. Instead the protests cost Canadians 1,500 jobs and the government did nothing, absolutely nothing. The hypocrisy that it would now bring in a redundant new offence for tampering with rail lines is so disingenuous.

This is not an authority problem; it is an enforcement problem. We have measures in the Criminal Code that deal with this exact subject. The police already have authority to lay charges in the case of all these rail blockades. They just needed to be able to do their jobs, but instead their political masters hamstrung them with laws that go after the wrong people, like Bill C-21, for example. The Liberals do not go after the gangs that bring in illegal guns; no, they go after farmers and law-abiding firearms owners.

When it comes to taxes, Liberals do not go after the super-rich who are hiding their money in offshore tax havens; they go after the small business owners and then call them tax cheats. They are always going after the wrong people. Driven by their ideology, they go for what they think is the low-hanging fruit, the easy pickings, like law-abiding citizens, because public perception is more important to them than public safety. This is why any new enforcement measures included in this bill will ultimately fail: It will be because there is a lack of political will to enforce the existing laws.

Whether it is the economy, our ports, supply chains or law enforcement, we do not need to spend more money and we do not need more government; we need government to get out of the way.

Sitting Resumed

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

National Day Against Gun Violence

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, today is the inaugural National Day Against Gun Violence. For far too many in our country, gun violence is a deeply personal tragedy that has claimed loved ones, shattered dreams and robbed our sense of security.

Many will recall the Danzig Street shooting in the summer of 2012 in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park. A gunman fired into a crowded block party, killing two young men and wounding 22 others. Even with the passage of time, the pain and loss linger. Let us honour the memories of victims and support the survivors by wearing white, the colour of peace, and raising awareness around gun violence.

As a government, we are taking decisive action to address gun violence with Bill C-21. Today, I call upon the leader of the opposition in the Senate to stop obstructing the passage of this bill.

Finally, I want to thank the Toronto Raptors for their collaboration and advocacy in making this day a reality.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are asking that Bill C-21 die on the Order Paper. It is an affront to private property rights. All it does is confiscate legal firearms from lawful citizens and does nothing to get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for all of the work that she does in her community. Like the residents of Châteauguay—Lacolle, the people in my riding of Honoré-Mercier are too often faced with gun violence.

I am proud to be able to tell them that we are taking action with Bill C-21. It is no secret that we would have liked to go even further, but even the strictest bill is no good if we cannot pass it. Bill C-21 may not be perfect, but it will make our communities a lot safer. What is clear is that the only way to keep assault weapons out of our communities is to have a Liberal government.

Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you might find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so we could continue the debate on Bill C-21.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, which is an important one. This is such a busy time for the House of Commons.

Tomorrow, we will deal with third reading of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages.

On Monday, we will resume report stage debate of Bill S-5, which would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, we will be dealing with report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, which, as we know, is the firearms legislation.

Thursday, May 18, will be an allotted day.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Monday, May 15, for the consideration in a committee of the whole for all votes under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions here. First of all, the petitioners wish to convey their sorrow for the fellow officers, the friends and the families of those involved in the tragic event earlier this morning.

These petitioners want Bill C-21 stopped in its tracks. It would do nothing to stop the real problem of gun-running and leaves a gaping hole that would remain as long as it is in force. The petitioners therefore call to either end the bill now or revoke the law if it gets that far.

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a respected critic for public safety. We talk about surprises, and I was surprised.

I wonder if he could tell the House why he was removed as critic and why the leader of the NDP removed him at the height of Bill C-21, seeing as he represents rural Canadians so well in his riding, and replaced him with the NDP House leader, who is really an urban MP. I wonder if the member could explain that logic to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to disagree with the principle that I think is behind the parliamentary secretary's remarks and question.

Of course, amendments are always welcome, and they should be informed by feedback received from the public and committee, but I have to draw the line at the particular amendments that were introduced in November because those took everyone by surprise, and not just the committee members. They took indigenous communities by surprise. They took hunters and farmers by surprise. It was such a huge overreach from the bill we originally thought we were debating at second reading. When we started debating Bill C-21, its main provisions were on airsoft, red flag laws and a handgun freeze.

I want to take a moment to also thank members of the committee for passing my amendment on airsoft. That amendment was passed, and I am happy to report to the airsoft community that the offending section of Bill C-21 has now been removed, thanks to an NDP amendment. That is definitely a bright light in this whole journey.

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

Madam Speaker, it is hard to find the words to start given how long I have personally been involved with this piece of legislation. I know there are a few select members of this House who would agree with me. I think for each one of us, this has been our own personal odyssey, and to get to this point is really remarkable. All of the different twists and turns that this one bill, Bill C-21, has taken are going to be studied in parliamentary procedure for years to come.

I have had the privilege of representing my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for three terms, now being in my eighth year, and I have discovered that in my time here, Parliament has demonstrated that it is indeed the last place to go for an open, honest and logical debate on firearms. A lot of the debate we have seen on this bill and on firearms regulations, policy and legislation in general has done a very real disservice to Canadians. Both sides of the issue have torqued up their arguments. There has been blatant misinformation and labelling, and this has really descended the level of debate into something that I think a lot of Canadians would quite rightly be disgusted by. It is very difficult in this place, when we have all of these torqued up emotions and political agendas, to have a reasoned debate on firearms. That certainly has been the story.

I know a lot of people on Twitter are following this debate very closely. I would say that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is probably the most watched committee of them all, and I know that my words right now are being analyzed and tweeted about, even in real time. I just want the people who are listening to brace themselves, because I have equal amounts of criticism for both the Liberals and the Conservatives as to why we now find ourselves in this place.

I first want to start by talking about the committee, because ultimately today's motion is one of instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. One could be forgiven for thinking that all this committee does is study policy and legislation surrounding firearms, because that is indeed all it has really been consumed with since the bill was referred to the committee late last year. In fact, we started Bill C-21 at committee in October 2022, and here we are now, well into May 2023, and we are still only at the clause-by-clause part of the bill.

I think it is useful for people to understand what the mandate of this committee is. It is responsible for reviewing legislation, policies, programs and expenditure plans of a whole host of different government departments and agencies that are responsible for not only public safety, but national security, policing, law enforcement, corrections, the conditional release of federal offenders, emergency management, crime prevention and of course the protection of our borders. When we are doing things like the estimates for the spending plans of Public Safety Canada, quite often we have representatives included from the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Parole Board of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

What I am trying to underline here is that this committee is an extremely important committee of the House of Commons, and all the work it does in all of these different areas in looking after our intelligence gathering, law enforcement and border protection has been sidelined by the incredible amount of time that has been consumed. Time is our most valuable resource in Parliament, and once we spend it we do not get it back.

Because of the shenanigans that have occurred with respect to Bill C-21, the public safety committee has quite correctly been prevented from examining all of these other different areas, keeping tabs on those different departments, examining different pieces of legislation and keeping tabs on what the government's policies and practices are going to be with respect to other key areas. That is an important element that we first need to establish when we are talking about where we are today.

As many members will know, including members in my own community, I used to be our party's public safety critic. I found my time on that committee to be personally quite valuable. I found that the subject matter we were dealing with was quite intellectually challenging and stimulating, and it is important work.

I know from my interactions with other members of the committee, whether on the Liberal, Conservative or Bloc Québécois side, that they all conducted themselves very well, and I enjoyed my working relationships with them. That even goes for our work on Bill C-21.

Believe it or not, there was actually a time when Bill C-21 was progressing through committee in relatively good order. We concluded roughly eight meetings with witnesses. The committee then had time to come forward with its amendments, and there seemed to be an acknowledgement that aside from a few differences with a few clauses here and there, the bill was probably on schedule to be reported back to the House for report stage and eventually third reading sometime in December.

We then got to November, and all hell broke loose. This was when the eleventh-hour amendments were dropped by the Liberals. I should correctly say “the Liberal government”, because I do not think they were, by design, from the Liberal members of the committee. They did come from the government.

I do not want to go into the details of the bill too much, because I think that is a well-trodden path and a well-known story, but allow me to take this moment in my speech to levy what I think are some well-earned criticisms on both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I know some of my colleagues will probably laugh at this, particularly the member for Hamilton Centre, because he has heard me joke about this before.

I often feel like the character Mercutio in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, when he is expressing his frustration with the Capulets and the Montagues, because I feel that same frustration with the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is difficult sometimes to watch the shenanigans between those parties and the way our level of debate around this issue descends into the depths and scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

Let me start with the Liberals. One day, someone is going to write a book about this sorry episode, and it is probably going to be titled something like “How Not to Amend One's Own Legislation”. It is going to be a warning guide for governments in the future on what not to do and how not to spring a surprise on an unsuspecting committee when they have not done their homework, when they have not done consultation and, most importantly, when they have not consulted with the members of the committee who are actually responsible for shepherding those amendments through.

I want to caution members: My comments are not, in any way, directed to the colleagues I work with, but more to the Liberal Party brain trust. I understand the reasoning behind where they are coming from. Gun violence in our major urban centres is a very concerning thing. It needs to be dealt with appropriately. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extreme grief that is out there within so many families who are dealing with a loss due to firearms violence.

Sometimes the road forward for the Liberals has been paved with good intentions, but it has led to some pretty awful results. I would ask them to step back and try and heal some of the wounds that exist in that divide between urban and rural Canada. We need to understand that yes, firearms violence is a big issue, but there also has to be a level of respect afforded to Canadians who are lawful firearms owners, who play by the rules and who have done everything right. I would encourage the Liberals to consult more with their rural MPs.

When the Liberals introduced those amendments, one of the groups that were leading the way was indigenous communities—not only hunters and farmers, but indigenous communities, not the least of which was the Assembly of First Nations. In an extremely rare move, the AFN came out with a unanimous emergency resolution on the last day. That is almost unheard of. They were going after the government for those ill-thought-of eleventh-hour amendments.

No consultation had taken place. One could make a legitimate argument that the Liberals, in bringing in these amendments, were not respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or even the legislation we have passed that enshrines that within our own laws to make sure that all federal laws are in harmony with the declaration itself. It went against the spirit of that.

Now I will turn to my Conservative friends.

What do we say about the reams of ridiculous hyperbole we have seen from that party on Bill C-21? The bill has been a fundraising boon for the Conservative Party. That giant sucking sound we hear is Conservatives hoovering money from the harvest of their rage-farming operation around the bill, and I think a part of me wonders whether the Conservatives do not want to see the bill go forward because it has been so financially viable for them. The evidence is all out there. I do not think there is any interest at all in trying to move the legislation forward, because doing so would essentially stop the goose from laying golden eggs for them. It has been an incredible money-maker for them.

When I look at some of the misinformation that has been put out by the Conservative Party around the bill, I see they are fanning flames of rage over amendments that no longer exist and incorrectly saying that the government wants to take away all their guns. It is just completely off-the-wall bonkers stuff that can be easily disproven, and it is completely not helping the standard of debate we expect of our parliamentarians. It just makes the rest of our jobs harder when we have to fight that completely untrue disinformation that is being actively fanned on social media.

Yes, it is a sorry state due to the actions of both parties in so expertly playing politics with the bill, and that is a large part of the reason we are here today.

We know that the problematic amendments were withdrawn by the Liberals. That is fact number one. All current owners of long guns in Canada are not going to have those firearms impacted, because the problematic amendments were withdrawn. What we now have being proposed as an amendment to the bill would go after firearms that will be manufactured in the future, after the bill receives royal assent. There is also an important amendment, I understand, that would make sure that nothing in the bill takes away from the rights of indigenous peoples. That is recognized and affirmed under section 35 of our Constitution.

Of course, there are incredibly important amendments dealing with the exponentially growing problem of ghost guns. This is a problem that has been brought to the committee's attention repeatedly by law enforcement agencies. I would hope that more attention is paid to those particular amendments, and of course we, the remaining members of the House of Commons, have to reserve our judgment on the bill until we see the final version that the committee ultimately reports back to us.

Now let us turn to the motion of instruction and what it would do.

First of all, we have to understand that as of this morning, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had already spent approximately five hours on clause-by-clause consideration. If they had been able to complete their meeting this afternoon, and I know it was interrupted by a series of votes, that would have brought the total to eight hours, which is roughly equivalent to four full meetings. The motion being debated today would add a further 17 hours to that, bringing it to roughly 25 hours, which is the equivalent of 12-and-a-half meetings.

I understand from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, our member on the public safety committee, that he has tried multiple times to extend the sitting hours of the public safety committee so that Conservatives, the Bloc and New Democrats could have additional time to look at the amendments that are being proposed by various members. I understand that in each of those instances, these attempts were either rejected or filibustered so that the committee ultimately could never get to a vote. To hear Conservatives complain that they are being silenced in the House when they have, in fact, had multiple opportunities at committee to extend the sitting hours of that committee does come across as a bit rich.

I would say that because I have had my staff look at bills similar in size and complexity to Bill C-21, Bill C-18 comes to mind. That particular bill, when it went through clause-by-clause study at its committee, had seven meetings, the equivalent of 14 hours, for clause-by-clause study, so that is more than enough time to get through it.

I know from my own experience, because I used to be a member of the public safety committee and have seen a lot of these amendments, that are a lot of them are very technical, small changes to the bill, especially the parts that deal with ghost guns. Not a lot of debate is going to be required on them. In fact, the committee can probably get through them in short order because they are repetitive and many different areas of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act have to be updated to make sure that those existing statutes are in harmony with each another.

The other thing I want to turn to in my final three minutes goes back to the earlier part that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the overall mandate of the public safety committee. We have two really important pieces of legislation waiting in the wings, waiting for their turn to be examined at the public safety committee. They are Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.

Bill C-20 is going to create our first-ever public accountability and transparency network that is independent of the RCMP and the CBSA. In fact, the CBSA has never had an independent oversight mechanism. Looking at the public safety committee's report from the previous Parliament looking at systemic racism in policing and looking at all of the instances of injuries and sometimes death that have happened to people who had been in the custody of the CBSA, we see that these are important measures. We have had so many racialized Canadians, so many indigenous Canadians who have been calling out for these types of oversight measures for years. Why should those pieces of legislation continue to be pushed back while we draw out this process on Bill C-21?

Bill C-26 is an important piece of legislation, which I will be the first to admit needs a lot of work at committee, but it is going to really bring in line a lot of the cybersecurity requirements that are needed for some of our critical sectors, be they in banking, transportation, energy and so on. It is going to be a requirement for many of those private actors to bring their systems in line with a standard that is acceptable to the federal government. Again, a lot of work is needed, but no one in this House can deny or absolve themselves from the fact that these are important issues that deserve to have their turn at the public safety committee.

My ultimate motivation for this motion today is to get Bill C-21 on its way. We have had enough time at the committee. It has occupied so much time at the public safety committee, and it is time for the public safety committee to move on to other bills that are equally important to many other Canadians.

In conclusion, I ultimately am going to reserve my judgment on Bill C-21 until I see what the committee reports back to the House, but I will not agree to let that committee continue to be bogged down, especially when there is so much other important work to be done.

With that I conclude. I welcome any comments and questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot predict the future. I do not know how the Conservatives will use the upcoming committee meetings or how they will use their time in the House when the bill returns. I cannot say in advance. I suspect that they will not support this bill. Is that a reason to reduce our speaking time on each amendment?

I have important amendments that I would like to move. Women's groups spoke to us. They want more protection. They do not feel protected by some elements currently in Bill C-21, which were introduced by the government.

We must take the time to debate these amendments properly. That is not what the government is proposing at this stage by claiming that the Conservatives could try to slow down debate. That is democracy. We must have a debate in committee. We must take the time to study this bill, which all my colleagues have said is very complex. It is not unusual to have questions for officials every time an amendment is moved.

I believe we must take the time needed.

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

Madam Speaker, I noted several elements in that question.

I do think it is unfortunate that the debate is being rushed through. I thought that the study in committee was constructive, that we were asking officials and the government the right questions and that we had time to debate amendments.

There is one interesting fact that I did not mention, which is that Bill C-21 is not a huge bill. It has 74 clauses. The party that moved the most amendments was the Liberal Party. That shows just how unprepared the government was to table this bill. Why did it not wait a little longer? Why did it not hold consultations all across the country in order to table a sturdy bill without having to amend its own bill? That is rather curious. We would not be here if the government had been more prepared. We would be working with the opposition parties' amendments, and there were a reasonable number of them. I do not know if I am allowed to say how many amendments were moved by each party, but it was a very reasonable number. I find that unfortunate.

I heard my colleague mention consultations. He believes that the Conservative ridings were not necessarily consulted and that the minister did not visit them. I do not believe that he came to any Bloc ridings either. Is that a coincidence? Let us say it was random. That said, I know that the government wanted to do better. However, as I mentioned, these consultations should have taken place at the outset, before Bill C-21 was even introduced.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is dishonest to spread this information during the debate. I am not saying that the government is beyond reproach. After all, its original intention was to lump all guns together, whether they are used for hunting or not. It has backed down. That is good, and I applaud that. Now we need to take action.

Those members' actions are not contributing to the debate at all. I am not afraid to call out the Conservative Party, because it is members of the Conservative Party who are using social media to scare people. Just yesterday, one of my colleagues was talking about how the Bloc Québécois was going after hunters, and he said that the motion we are debating today was another attack on hunters. I had no choice but to tell him that what he was saying was wrong. Sometimes people are good at playing with the truth and coming very close to lying, and sometimes it is just a lie. That is dishonest. I am talking about what is being said on social media, not here in the House. It does not contribute to the debate.

Let us be clear about what Bill C-21 does at this point. As I said, right now, hunting guns and air guns are off the table. This bill is about something else entirely. I want to be clear about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I was just in committee to debate Bill C-21. I left so that I could come give this speech here, since the House is considering a government motion to speed up work on the bill.

The government claims to be moving this motion because the Conservatives are filibustering and trying to slow the work down at every turn. That is odd, because I have been on this committee for several years and I have seen the Conservatives engage in filibustering. However, this is not what I am seeing in committee right now. Everyone is acting in good faith.

When I asked a question earlier, I spoke briefly about the bill's history, but I will now speak about it in more detail. Bill C-21 was introduced on May 30, 2022. In a few days, it will be one year since the bill was introduced. One would think that one year is enough time for parliamentarians to debate this bill, hear from experts in committee, conduct consultations and study the bill clause by clause. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.

Initially, this bill was about handguns. In the aftermath of a mass shooting at a Texas primary school, where several children were killed, the government rushed to introduce this bill saying that, at least in Canada, something was being done to counter gun violence.

The introduction of this bill was accompanied by a national freeze on handguns. When government officials announced this bill, they were backed by groups that supported the legislation, groups that want better gun control. These groups were behind the government when it made this announcement because it had made a promise to them. These groups, which were advocating for a ban on assault weapons, were told that the bill as it was drafted at the time did not cover assault weapons, but the government promised them that it would amend its bill to address both handguns and assault weapons.

The Minister of Public Safety and even the Prime Minister, if I am not mistaken, made that commitment, and those groups were hopeful that Bill C-21 would actually reform gun control in this country.

The government did amend its bill. It had made that commitment more or less publicly. Let us just say that it was not our understanding that the government would be amending the bill to ensure it addressed assault weapons. We were focusing on handguns.

In committee we heard from experts who talked about the impact of this handgun freeze in the country. Bill C-21 deals with many other things. I am thinking in particular about the “red flag” provision and the family violence protection orders. There are some rather interesting things in Bill C-21 and they could actually change things. That is what we were debating when parliamentarians were able to be heard in the House. That is what we were debating in committee. We wanted advice on these provisions from experts who appeared in committee.

In November, when this whole process ended, the government arrived with its infamous amendments on assault weapons. We are not talking about a minor amendment. It was some 400 pages of amendments. It was quite thick. The government presented these amendments saying that this was its measure for banning ghost guns, in other words, homemade guns. People order different parts online, build the gun at home and then take it out on the street. The government told us that the purpose of the amendment was to address that problem. We were okay with that. It is a growing phenomenon in the country.

However, we noticed that the amendment was a bit more complicated. It talks about a definition of banned assault weapons. I have to say that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of that. We have been calling for that for a long time, and it has been part of our election platforms. We have been calling for a ban on military-style assault rifles. We do not think that people should have weapons like that at home or that they should be on our streets. Civilians have no reason to have those kinds of weapons. We are not talking about weapons that are used for hunting, for example, so we are happy to see that a definition has been proposed.

The caveat is that the government is proposing a definition but then, in a schedule, it is proposing to include a list of hundreds of firearms in the Criminal Code.

When we have questions for the government, the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security are unable to answer a single one of our questions. They do not even know what they just tabled, what is in it, what impact it would have or what weapons are included. There was an outcry. Picture it: The Conservatives are asking questions, the Bloc is asking questions, the NDP is asking questions; everyone is trying to find out more about what is on this infamous list. The officials were supposed to support us in studying the bill but, in the end, they were answering for the Liberals, who were unable to explain their own amendments.

What we came to understand was that the government was trying to include weapons in the Criminal Code that were already banned by the order in council. The list included weapons that have been banned since 1990. It included firearms that were banned as a result of the 2020 order in council, which covered about 1,500 models of firearms. Others were added later. Close to 2,000 weapons are now covered by this order in council. The weapons covered by the 2020 and 1990 orders in council are part of the list.

We realized that there were about 482 new models that are legal right now that the government was trying to include in the Criminal Code. We thought that was odd. The government could have done this through an order, as it did for the other firearms, but it wanted to include this nearly 400-page list in the Criminal Code.

The list was rather difficult to understand. If a gun owner wanted to know whether their gun was going to be banned, they could do an electronic search for that model in the virtual document. If their gun came up in the search, they would be in a complete panic, thinking that the government wanted to ban that weapon.

However, from what we understand about the way the list is written, there were exceptions. As the officials explained to us, there were introductory paragraphs. There were lists of models of firearms, and then there was a paragraph that said, “with the exception of these models”. People were finding their firearms on the list and thinking they were going to be banned when that was not actually the case.

There was also quite a bit of confusion about the definition itself. People thought that a gun with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules would surely be prohibited. In Canada, the firearms that were banned by the 1990 order in council often met this criterion. Normally, these firearms were already prohibited. This created a lot of confusion. It is not surprising that people were afraid that their legally owned firearm would end up on this list. I would add that the gun lobby did not really help matters by spreading disinformation, which was then picked up by the Conservative Party. Hunters across the country were convinced that the firearms they use to hunt would be taken away.

After asking the government repeated questions, we figured out that there were indeed some firearms on this list that were supposedly problematic, in other words possibly used for hunting. We were not able to get clear definitions for either a firearm used for hunting or an assault weapon designed for a military context. The government could not provide any clear definitions. We said that these weapons could all be lumped together. Some are reasonably used for hunting. Consider, for example, the SKS. This weapon was created by the Soviet Union around the time of the Second World War. It was created for a military context and was used during that era in a military context.

Today, it is an affordable gun that is popular among hunters and indigenous people. We figured that it ended up on the list because it is technically an assault weapon, but it is reasonably used for hunting. For its part, the government tells us that this gun was used in some shootings in Canada, and therefore, it needs to be banned. There were no clear definitions, however. The government was unable to say why this type of gun needed to be banned and another type did not. This caused a great deal of confusion for everyone. We told the government to scrap this list. We asked it to come back with a new proposal, because no one was happy about this one.

The Bloc Québécois made a suggestion. Since a lot of people did not get the opportunity to be heard on these new amendments, we said we should invite them to committee and reopen the study, so these witnesses could at least tell us how they would be affected by this bill, if passed.

The committee members agreed. We decided to hold four meetings so that we could receive indigenous groups, hunting groups from Quebec, Ontario and just about everywhere, and so on. Alberta's chief firearms officer came to testify. Gun control groups obviously came back because they had not been able to share their thoughts on assault weapons when we were only talking about handguns.

These people came back to testify in committee. When we asked them whether they had been consulted by the government before these amendments were introduced, they told us that they had not received a call. They had not been consulted at all, whereas normally, when the government decides to introduce new legislation, it does some work beforehand to meet with those concerned, to see how they can work together. It tries to determine whether the bill will work for them. The experts know the subject, they are the ones who are on the ground. They can point us in the right direction, or in a direction that is potentially acceptable. However, we were told that the government had not done any consultations.

The government was feeling a lot of pressure from all the parties, but also from within its own Liberal caucus. Some Liberal backbenchers had obviously not been consulted about the amendments. Some members who represent rural ridings did not agree that firearms that could reasonably be used for hunting should be considered restricted weapons under the Criminal Code. The pressure was mounting.

In a dramatic turn of events, in February, the government withdrew its amendments on assault weapons. We were left wondering whether we should continue to study the bill as it stood or whether we should wait. The government said to wait because it wanted to work on something. It wanted to reintroduce a definition of prohibited weapons and therefore a definition of assault weapons, and it wanted to hold consultations.

The minister travelled around Canada a bit. He met with indigenous groups and hunting groups to find out whether they agreed with him. It seems the consultations were not very positive. However, the minister did his job. It was a bit too late, but he did it. In my opinion, he should have done that from the start.

It took several meetings, weeks even, before the government came back with a new proposal. Last week, the Minister of Public Safety made a big show of announcing that he would return with a definition of prohibited weapons. As I said earlier, the first amendment also included elements about ghost guns, and everyone agreed on that. He also announced new complementary measures.

In our negotiations with the government, we understood that certain things can be done through legislation, through a bill, specifically Bill C-21, but it is not always so straightforward. Other changes need to be made through regulations, and the minister is the only one who can make regulations. Oddly enough, the same day he announced that the amendments were being reintroduced, he also announced that he was going to do some things by regulation, including a proposal that the Bloc Québécois had made on how firearms are classified.

I put this question to several witnesses who appeared before our parliamentary committee. Currently, a firearm can be sold on the market in Canada when it should be classified as restricted or prohibited. The RCMP will eventually realize that it is on the market. Why is it not the other way around?

I believe that the RCMP should approve a firearm and ensure that it is above board before it is put on the Canadian market. The process should be similar to the one for pharmaceutical companies. I believe that when a pharmaceutical company wants to put a new drug on the market, it must be approved by Health Canada before it can be sold. I made that comparison because it seems to me that it would be another safeguard that would prevent new, unauthorized firearms from being on the market.

The minister made another rather interesting announcement. He announced that he was going to enact regulations on high-capacity magazines. That is one of the things the Bloc Québécois has been asking for. Many gun control groups have been asking the same because although a gun is designed to hold a magazine with five rounds, it can accommodate a magazine with 30 rounds. The magazines are often universal. This becomes fatal if the person holding the gun wants to kill several people in a very short amount of time. We felt that these high-capacity magazines needed to be prohibited. The Minister of Public Safety told us that they were already illegal in Canada, that it was not supposed to be like that.

What we learned because several groups told us and we saw it ourselves, given that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recently visited the RCMP vault, is that some magazines can be blocked with the help of a small rivet. For example, a magazine with 30 rounds could be blocked and limited to five rounds. The magazine therefore becomes legal because it is technically a five-round magazine. This was still on the market and still legal. In some of Canada's well-known shootings, the gunman simply removed the rivet to create a high-capacity magazine and that cost the lives of dozens of people. We then said that this type of magazine needed to be banned. I am very pleased that the minister has made that commitment, but now he needs to follow through. It is nice to promise things, but I expect these regulations to come into force quickly.

The minister also said that he would re-establish the Canadian firearms advisory committee. He is proposing to do so because it seems that when the government was considering what to do about the banned firearms and wanted to put the 482 models in the Criminal Code, there was a small lapse in political courage. The minister was unable to make a decision and said he would re-establish this advisory committee, appoint experts, people who support gun control, hunters and indigenous people and then ask them to make a recommendation about firearms classification, for example. He could then make a regulation or issue a new order in council.

That seems promising. We have always said that firearms classifications should not be up to politicians. This committee's mandate should be clear. The committee should be established quickly, it should make its recommendations quickly and the minister should move quickly.

As I said at the start, the Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of banning military-style assault weapons. By proposing his new prospective definition that will only apply to weapons that will come onto the market in the future, the minister is leaving 482 weapons on the market that he initially wanted to include in the Criminal Code.

The Bloc Québécois said that we needed to find a reasonable and acceptable solution. The government determined that approximately 12 of these weapons could potentially be used for hunting. It should have its committee look at them to figure out how to classify them. As for the remaining 470 weapons, the minister can ban them by order as of tomorrow. He can even do it today if he wants to. He does not need the House's approval to do that.

If the government is really serious about banning military-style assault weapons, it can do so immediately by order. That is what the Bloc Québécois recommends. That is the proposal that we made to the minister. I suggested that in a private conversation that I had with him. We said it in the media. We made the suggestion a number of times in a number of places. We made the suggestion publicly and I think that it is a reasonable one.

It really bugs me when the Conservatives argue that Bill C-21 and today's motion target hunters in Canada. That is not true. Thanks to pressure from the Bloc Québécois, that list was taken out of the Criminal Code. What we are saying is that the government needs to ask its experts what to do about weapons used for hunting. As for the other ones, though, the government should ban them immediately.

I do not think taking those kinds of intellectual shortcuts and fearmongering serves the debate. People are writing to their MPs. My Bloc Québécois colleagues tell me about the people who write to them. These people are worried. They have heard a Conservative MP give a speech or do an interview, and they are worried their hunting gun will be banned. They think the Bloc Québécois supports that. That is not the case. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's work, hunting guns were taken out of Bill C-21. I think that is good news for hunters. Maybe more people need to know about that, which is why we will try to play a bigger role in this debate.

There is also good news for airsoft fans. Two days ago, we got air guns taken out of Bill C-21. The government wanted to ban them. This is good news for them too.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say on a personal note that I do greatly miss the member at public safety. As the NDP lead, I found him to be more reasonable. He was strong in his own convictions, but he was reasonable to work with. I am just learning how to work with the new member, and I am hoping for the best. However, from the rhetoric, I have some concerns about what he said about Conservatives so far, because these things are not factual or true. However, I will get to that in a second.

In terms of what the member said on rural communities and the RCMP, I agree that we have to talk about oversight. However, the member has to send that question over to the Liberals. How dare they put the committee at a standstill for months? That is not on us; that is on the Liberals. They did this, and I know that he agrees, because he said as much. Again, the member's question needs to be directed to the Liberals on why they made this situation at committee on Bill C-21.

Overall, on the idea that Conservatives have voted down the new NDP member's efforts to extend sitting, and there have been two times that he has done that, when the Liberals delayed this, the minister made us wait six weeks to get started, and there were shenanigans. Again, we could have been done this probably before Christmas actually, because we were going quite well throughout Bill C-21, even though we did not all agree. We would have been done before Christmas. That is on the Liberals.

However, now that the bill is back, he was suggesting that we have to go all the way to midnight today, tomorrow and then Thursday. Why would the committee members and the interpreters and everything else that goes into it have to do nine hours straight three nights in a row because the Liberals held this up, because the Liberals blew this up? That is on them. All those questions need to be directed to the Minister of Public Safety and the Liberal parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things to point out. The list, first and foremost, may have been withdrawn from public scrutiny, but we have heard from the Liberal parliamentary secretary that it is going to go over to this so-called expert firearms advisory committee. Yesterday in the House, she said that they will look at what they should ban from that list. Those were her words. Therefore, I do not think the list is gone; it is just going to an unelected advisory committee with less transparency. The committee will have meetings in the dark behind closed doors, so to speak, so there is that.

I think part of the member's question was in response to the Liberal member who asked me the first question, and I would agree with most of her assessment. The committee has been working very well. Had the Liberals not been so sneaky with their underhanded amendment in November, we would have been past Bill C-21 a long time ago. This is on the Liberals for being underhanded and sneaky, bringing forward the worst amendments to attack hunters in generations, at the 11th hour in committee. That is not on us; that is on them. They dragged this out.

The minister then made us wait for six weeks. Now we are resuming. They call what the Conservatives have done a filibuster. The NDP lead on committee has spoken more than almost anybody else; I will make that very clear. It is ridiculous. Therefore, I reject completely that this is on the Conservatives. It is the Liberals' fault that we are in this mess with Bill C-21. People just have to look at the committee record to know that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which she started yesterday. I applaud her public speaking talent.

I agree with her on many of the points she raised, but I disagree on others.

I agree that the reason we have reached this point is that the government has been unable to do the work people need it to do. Bill C-21 was introduced a year ago. The amendments went back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security last week. We have really only been working on Bill C-21 for less than a week so far.

Suddenly the Conservatives are filibustering. Things are not moving fast enough and this is urgent. The government is the reason it took so long. I agree with my colleague on that. However, I do not agree that this motion and Bill C-21 as written are still anti-hunter.

She asked officials some questions. She is well aware that the government backtracked on the infamous list it tried to put in the Criminal Code. At this point, Bill C-21 does not affect hunting guns.

I would like to know if she agrees on that much at least, because it is a fact.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be resuming, in the remaining time that the Liberals and the NDP have permitted me. Of course, they are silencing me in this debate in the House and they are going to be further silencing us in committee on Bill C-21, despite the millions of people whom this bill impacts.

I want to acknowledge that it has been a terrible year for police, to say the least. This comes during a violent crime wave across the country. We have seen a 32% increase in violent crime since the Liberals formed government about eight years ago. We are seeing the result of their soft-on-crime, catch-and-release policies that they work very closely on with the NDP. Those are coming home to roost, and people are being violently assaulted and murdered on public transit.

Our police officers, of course, are on the front lines, fighting these violent criminals. Often it is the same criminals every single weekend whom our brave, dedicated men and women in uniform are putting their lives at risk to deal with. They actually sometimes know these violent repeat offenders on a first-name basis.

I think it is important that we acknowledge, in the House, the failures of the policies of the current government, working with the NDP, and the consequences of that in real life.

Of course, there are multiple factors that contribute to violent crime, but we know, from police, that Bill C-75, which was a Liberal bill from a number of years ago, exacerbated the catch-and-release policies. This was evident on a Victoria police department news release that was talking about a vile rapist who committed 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon, rapes with a weapon. On the bottom of the press release, because the police wanted to ensure that the public knew that it was not their fault that this horrible, vile man was being released, they said that this person was being released because of Bill C-75, the Liberal bill from a number of years ago.

The Liberals just passed Bill C-5, which I alluded to yesterday, and I talked about the series of violent crimes that no longer will have mandatory prison time as a result of Bill C-5. Talking about rapists, one result of Bill C-5 is that a man in Quebec who violently raped a woman will get zero days in prison, and gets to serve his sentence, a conditional sentence for 20 months, from the comforts of his home.

These are real consequences. As I mentioned, I know that there are a multitude of factors in violent crime, but we are hearing directly from police that the Liberal bills have impacted these things.

It has been a very tough year for police, and Bill C-21 would do nothing to solve the violent crime problem in Canada, because, when it talks about firearms, it goes after law-abiding citizens, who, of course, by definition, are law-abiding. That is why they have the ability to own firearms, because they have been proven and vetted to be law-abiding. They are the only people who would be impacted by the firearm measures in this bill.

Meanwhile, while this is happening, with all of these resources and all of this time and all of these announcements from the Liberals, who are targeting law-abiding citizens, we have had many police officers, just in the past few months, who have been murdered.

I would like to name them today: Constable Andrew Hong, September 12, 2022, murdered by gunshot on the job; Constable Morgan Russell, October 12, 2022, gunshot; Constable Devon Northrup, October 12, 2022, gunshot; Constable Shaelyn Yang, October 18, 2022, stabbing; and Constable Greg Pierzchala, whom I talked about yesterday. He was murdered on December 27, 2022, by gunshot, by a man who was out on bail and had a lifetime prohibition against owning firearms and a very long rap sheet of violent crimes, yet was out on bail.

This is the state of public safety and crime under the Liberal government. Greg Pierzchala is dead because of our weak bail system. This is what we have heard from Toronto police, who deal with this on the front lines more than anybody else. There are more: Constable Travis Jordan, March 16, 2023; Constable Brett Ryan, March 16, 2023; Sergeant Maureen Breau, March 27, 2023; and Constable Harvinder Singh Dhami, April 10, 2023.

It has been a rough couple of years for police. The morale is very low. Recruitment numbers are very low, and, at the same time, Canada is dealing with 124,000 more violent crime incidents in 2021 than in 2015.

That is the record of this Liberal government. It does not like to acknowledge it. It does not like to talk about it. It likes to brush off responsibility and blame everybody else.

The fact is that, compared to 2015, there are 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year in Canada. Meanwhile, police morale is in crisis, recruitment and retention are in crisis, and police officers are being murdered every other week. However, we hear more announcements from the Minister of Public Safety about going after law-abiding citizens than about going after anybody else. I do not know how many times we have to say this. The Liberals are going after, and spending resources and precious time on, the wrong people, the most vetted people in the country, who, statistically, are one-third as likely to cause crimes as anybody else, than non-firearm owners. It is insane, if someone just looks at the raw data. These are heavily vetted, tested and trained Canadian citizens.

The Conservative Party firmly supports responsible gun ownership laws. We are talking about licensing, vetting and safe storage. These things are very important. Only responsible Canadians should ever come near a firearm. If there are any gaps in that, we are happy to have that discussion, but we have a very robust system in Canada.

We are seeing 124,000 additional violent crimes and hundreds of thousands of other violent crimes every year. They are going up every year as a result of the Liberal government's policies, as pointed out by many police forces. Of the hundreds of thousands of violent crimes that happen every year, do members want to know how many are as a result of long guns, for example, which have been the primary target of the Liberal government in recent months? I am referring to long guns belonging to law-abiding citizens, not criminals, because, of course, they do not listen to the laws. Do people know how many are a factor in those hundreds of thousands of violent crimes? It is less than 0.5%.

We also know that, of those who do commit violent crimes with firearms, the vast majority are not legally allowed to own firearms. Therefore, any law and all this time wasted would have no impact on them whatsoever. We are talking about a fraction of a fraction of people whom the Liberals are spending all this time and resources on.

I will remind the House that the Liberals are bringing forward phase two of their regime of confiscation of private property from law-abiding citizens. They call it a “buyback” program. They never owned the firearms in the first place, so I am not sure how they are buying them back. They are going to be spending billions of dollars on it.

There is an estimate from the Fraser Institute. Before the latest round of long gun bans coming forward with this so-called new definition and the hidden list that is being passed over sneakily to the firearms advisory committee, which would add hundreds of firearms to the ban list, the Fraser Institute estimated that the original May 2020 order in council, in essence, would be $6 billion.

Do people know how much good could be done in fighting violent crime and gun crime by criminals and gangsters with $6 billion? We could equip every port of entry with scanning technology. We could hire so many more police officers. We could heavily invest in youth diversion programs. We have seen that, in addition to the responsible gun ownership measures I have mentioned that have been in Canada for a number of years, which Conservatives firmly support, other measures that are important are getting youth when they are just getting led down the path of crime.

If we can get a 12-year-old when he is romanced by the gang to steal his first car, if we could just catch him then, extend a hand and show him a better way, speak to him in a way that is relatable, and have members of his community have the resources to support him, that young man could have a real life. He could have a family and a job, and be a responsible contributing member to his community. That is when we have to catch them.

If we could just take all the money the Liberals would be wasting, which would do nothing, as it says right in the data, to prevent violent crime and gun violence, we could do a lot of good. However, the Liberals are not open to that conversation. They do not want to talk about that. They are too busy fearmongering.

I mentioned this earlier, and I got a bit emotional about it, but the turn that the Minister of Public Safety has taken with his rhetoric against me and members of my party is very concerning. We can have a professional debate. We can have this factual discussion. We can have our viewpoints. They do not want anyone to own firearms, no matter how vetted they are. We believe in protecting the culture and heritage of Canadians. We can have that robust debate; we have been having it for decades. For him to have taken the turn he has taken, to go so dirty on this when I have done my best, as have members of our party, to ensure that this is a professional conversation and that we are leading and protecting people who are being kicked by the government and used as a political wedge on a daily basis, particularly in rural Canada, is very upsetting. I mean that very honestly.

I called him out on it today, and he did not apologize for his disgusting remarks. I found it very disappointing. Why can we not have a civilized conversation based on facts when it comes to this? I do not know. Maybe it is because they are not doing so well in the polls and we are doing pretty well. Maybe they want an election soon and this is a real winner for them, or has been in the past.

Now that we are building on the work of all the Conservative members and we are talking about the people this really impacts, it is resonating with people. Nobody believes it in the suburbs. Nobody believes it in Winnipeg. I represent an urban riding, and no one believes that Grandpa Joe and his hunting rifle are responsible for the gangsters in Toronto who are 3D-printing guns, smuggling guns, wreaking havoc and murdering innocent people and police officers. No one believes that going after hunters is going to solve that, yet we are seeing billions of dollars, countless resources, misinformation, disinformation and disgusting rhetoric from the public safety minister and others on the Liberal benches. It does not make any sense. There is no science or data to back it up whatsoever.

I could go on for quite some time, but of course I have been silenced by the Liberal-NDP coalition. In my remaining moments, I will move an amendment to the motion.

I move, seconded by the member for Peterborough—Kawartha:

In paragraph (a) by deleting all the words after the words “expand its scope” and substituting the following: “to (i) address illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, (ii) modify provisions relating to bail rules in offences involving firearms to ensure serious, repeat, violent offenders remain behind bars as they await trial, (iii) bring in measures to crack down on border smuggling and stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada”;

In paragraph (b) by deleting all the words after the words “by the committee” and substituting the following: “the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, other ministers of the Crown and senior officials be invited to appear as witnesses from time to time as the committee sees fit,”;

In paragraph (c) by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “Standing Orders 57 and 78 shall not apply to the consideration at the report stage and the third reading stage of the bill”; and

by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e).

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to continue my remarks concerning what is, in my opinion, a very undemocratic motion put forward by the Liberals.

What just transpired in this House was a closure motion to basically shut me up and stop the discussion we began as a result of the Liberals and the NDP working together. They did not like that I was going on and on. I had a lot to say, so they voted to keep me quiet. I will be silenced, in essence, after these 20 minutes by the Liberals and the NDP, who are working together to ultimately ensure the slow and painful removal of hunting rifles from everyday Canadians who are trained, tested and vetted by police. That is just the context for folks so they know what is going on in this House.

Ultimately, Motion No. 25 is a time allocation motion, in essence. At committee, we are talking about Bill C-21 and the many amendments brought forward by the Liberals, the NDP and other parties, which are worthy of discussion, debate and questions for officials. If the motion passes, which it is sure to do because the NDP and the Liberals are working together so closely on this, it will severely limit our ability as opposition members to heavily scrutinize a bill that would impact 2.3 million gun owners, hundreds of millions of dollars in our economy and tens of thousands of jobs, not to mention the hundreds of years of culture and heritage in Canada. Just to be clear, that is what the Liberals and the NDP are working together on today.

The Conservatives have been relentless in standing up for rural Canadians and for law-abiding citizens. Certainly, I have been honoured to be given this role by our leader, the member for Carleton, but there are many other members in our caucus who have done extraordinary work for all firearms owners, hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous Canadians. I want to make sure they are acknowledged, because they only reason we are here and have mobilized the country to pay attention to this injustice by the Liberals and the NDP working together is the work that has come from people before me and the work of committee members now. I just want to acknowledge them.

At the public safety committee, I have worked very closely with the members for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner and Sturgeon River—Parkland, and recently we also had on committee the member for Langley—Aldergrove. We have worked very hard over the last six months and over the year and a half I have been on committee. Certainly, we have gotten a lot of expertise from folks in our caucus who really live and breath this culture in Canada. They are a true testament to how important it is in Canada that we fight for this to maintain it. They are the members for Red Deer—Lacombe and Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

I come after very strong members of Parliament who have done extraordinary work. I have been able to stand on the shoulders of those who have come before me. Notably, the member for Lakeland is an extraordinary woman and did incredible work on this file. I am very honoured to follow her and follow in her footsteps in this role. There is also the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

We have a team of Conservatives who are working on the right side of this debate. They are making history to stand up for a culture that continues to be kicked like a football, a political wedge, by the Liberals. Every time they are not doing well in the polls and every time our message is resonating, it is like they break out an emergency, and firearms is one of them. They spread misinformation, when really we know all of what they are doing does not impact the criminals who are shooting up the streets, and does not impact the gangsters who are in highly organized smuggling rings across the border to bring in the nine out of 10 firearms used in Toronto. The drugs and human trafficking are related.

This is rather than attacking those issues and repeat violent offenders, and it is a result of the government's catch-and-release bail system from Bill C-75 a few years ago, a Liberal bill that the police tell us over and over again is causing what is happening on our streets. We see all these repeat violent offenders stabbing people and wreaking havoc on our streets. Forty individuals in Vancouver were responsible for 6,000 interactions with police last year. This is a result of the reckless catch-and-release policies the Liberals brought in, and they were heavily supported, in lockstep, by the NDP.

While all of this is happening, our message is resonating and the public is concerned about public safety. However, what do the Liberals do? They bring in gun control, which we know really means they are going after heavily vetted, trained and tested individuals who are licensed to own firearms. They hunt, protect their livestock and represent us at the Olympics in sport shooting. These are the kinds of people the Liberals are targeting with Bill C-21, and the NDP is working in lockstep to slowly but surely, step by step, destroy this way of life in Canada.

Shame on the NDP. The New Democrats have plenty of rural and northern members whom they are failing given what they are doing with the Liberals. I am going to name a few of those members. There are so many, honestly. These are good rural people who are being failed by what the NDP is doing here.

We have the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in Ontario; the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski from Manitoba, which is all of northern Manitoba, where they live off hunting; and the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I know there are a lot of hunters and sport shooters in his riding. We have the member for Courtenay—Alberni and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in B.C., and we have the members for North Island—Powell River, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Timmins—James Bay and Nunavut. People are being failed by their members of Parliament in this regard.

For a moment, we thought there was a light, and the NDP members were supportive, saying, “No, this is crazy.” I do not know what the Liberals are offering them, but then, all of a sudden, they completely abandoned the rural people they are supposed to represent, who are continuously kicked by the Liberal government. It is disgusting.

I have a lot to say with my remaining time. Again, I have been silenced and limited to 20 minutes now because the Liberals and the New Democrats do not want to hear the facts. All they want to do is work together to destroy a way of life in this country that the Conservatives are very proud to protect and fight for. We will continue to do so.

Honestly, I had four binders of facts and data, which the Liberals pretend they care about while they follow the science. We will never get to that. We will never get to have the opportunity to talk about that because they have voted to silence the debate on this. I wonder why. They are running, perhaps, from the reality of what they are facing. They do not want to face the facts on the ground of what this means to the Canadians it impacts and what it means to let criminals off the hook yet again.

It is very disappointing that the Liberals are working with the New Democrats and that the New Democrats are going along with this. They should be ashamed. They should be ashamed that they are letting down rural Canadians in this way, who thought they had a voice when they voted NDP. Clearly they were wrong. I am very sorry to those voters, but we will have their backs. We will continue to have their backs, and we will also have the backs of all the folks in cities who are being misrepresented by the Liberals.

We will pick this back up in an hour.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague from London that, as he knows, we have been working with rural communities and first nations communities right across the country.

In fact, I have spent a good, considerable period of time with a number of experts in gaming and hunting in the Yukon, where I had a chance to see how they participate in their traditions. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the way in which they participate in their traditions in a way that is safe and secure. I have also assured them, as we have done with indigenous communities, that this bill would reflect their lived experiences. What does that mean in plain and simple terms? It means that this bill would not target them. Rather, it would go after criminals. It would go after AR-15 assault-style firearms. Yes, it would implement a national freeze on handguns, because handguns have been growing by approximately 55,000 new registrations every year and they have concurrently become the number one type of gun used in homicides.

Those are the types of evidence-based, informed policies that are in Bill C-21, and that is why it would help save lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are at least two serious mistakes in the premise of the Conservative member's question. The first is that we are not going after criminals. In Bill C-21, as I have just mentioned, we would raise maximum sentences from 10 to 14 years for illegal gun traffickers. That is an important and powerful signal to anyone who would try to terrorize our communities that they will run the risk of going to jail for a longer period of time.

The Conservative member also referred to prevention. That is precisely what the government is doing with a $250-million building safer communities fund. I would point out that the Conservatives have opposed the building safer communities fund's allocations, which will save lives through prevention by providing mental health services and other supports for people who are at most risk. The Conservatives are also against Bill C-21, which would give law enforcement the additional tools to go after criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. That is why their position is so misguided.

On this side of the House, we are doing the work. We are making sure that we pass responsible gun control legislation, but we are also taking action at the border and advancing strong prevention strategies.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem with gangs and violence. Violent crime is skyrocketing. We are talking about Bill C-21, which talks about taking legal guns from legal gun owners.

I want to ask the minister, since the government uses evidence-based policies, what percentage of crimes are committed by people with illegal guns, and what percentage are committed by people who have actual legal guns? The answer to the second is going to be zero. After 35 years in policing, I know that answer. Why not put that money into education programs and forget Bill C-21? Scrap Bill C-21. It would not be effective.

I agree that we need to have gun laws, but the government is targeting people who have legal guns. Why not go after the ones who have illegal guns, the criminals?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to talk about Bill C-21 and to really stand up against it.

Getting an honest answer from the minister is difficult. We have tried. I remember being the one in SECU who actually got the witnesses to admit that law-abiding hunters' firearms were on the banned list. The Liberals have tipped their hand, and most firearms owners across the country know that. I have spoken with Liberal members of Parliament who do not necessarily like the way their own government is going on firearms.

This is really a call-out to the NDP. I just heard members from the island. I have been to the Campbell River Gun Club, where people brought huge concerns forward around Bill C-21 and the freedom to access their legally obtained firearms. Again, these are citizens who are vetted on a daily basis. The stats support that people who have a firearms licence are far less likely to commit a crime than an average citizen is. These are impeccable citizens being shown complete disrespect by the Liberal minister.

Again, my question for the New Democrat members is whether they will finally stand with their constituents and oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on this side of the government aisle is correct. The vast majority of Canadians, approximately 80% of Canadians, support a national ban against AR-15 style, assault-style firearms. They support a national freeze on handguns.

Handguns have become the number one type of gun used in homicides. Canadians support and want to see action that will allow us to reverse the disturbing and alarming trends of domestic abuse and the presence of guns. Again, women are disproportionately victimized as a result of the presence of guns. We want to reverse those trends.

We want to save lives, which is precisely why we need to move forward with Bill C-21. Were it not for the Conservatives who continue to obstruct and obfuscate, we would be able to do that more quickly. That is why we are taking the step that we are today, and we will continue to engage with all Canadians so we can keep them safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to the ongoing efforts by the Conservatives to stoke fear, we respect gun owners, farmers and the first nations communities who use firearms responsibly. I have engaged with all of them, and we have gone to great lengths to make sure we are weaving their experiences into our laws.

Therefore, rather than stoke fear and disinformation among Canadians, it would be far more productive if Conservatives were prepared to have a debate based on facts, not fear. That is what we are doing with other parties in this chamber, including the NDP and the Bloc, and I want to thank them for their collaboration on Bill C-21.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the observations I have made during my time in this place is how much the Liberal government loves to hinder Canadians and their freedoms.

We saw Bill C-11 get rammed through the House. We more recently saw how Beijing interfered in our elections in this country. An hon. colleague of mine, and his family in Hong Kong, were threatened and intimidated, and the government did nothing. We have seen the government move time allocation on bills over and over again to ram them through.

Specifically, with Bill C-21, we see a government that wants to take away rifles from hunters, again wanting to thwart the freedom Canadians have, and not entrust them with the tools for a basic lifestyle. I am curious as to why the government is so distrusting of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have worked very closely with my friend and colleague, the member for Surrey—Newton, when it comes to keeping our communities safe.

As he knows, we recently made an announcement in his riding that will provide additional grassroots support to the organizations providing mental health services, educational supports and career supports, especially to those young people who are at the greatest risk of being exposed to gun violence.

I want to emphasize that this is a government that is squarely focused on three priorities when it comes to reducing gun violence: strong borders, strong laws and enforcement, and strong prevention. Together, with the support of a number of other opposition parties, it is my sincere hope that we will pass Bill C-21 so we can put in place strong gun control laws to save lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would want to go to great lengths to speak extemporaneously from my knowledge of this file. I will tell members, though, that, with regard to Bill C-21, there have been 15 meetings, 79 witnesses and approximately 40 hours spent, despite the fact that, at various junctures in this debate, we have seen the Conservatives filibuster in an effort to stop a responsible rigorous debate on gun control laws in this country.

This is not the first time this has occurred. This is consistent with a pattern of obstruction and obfuscation by principally one party in the chamber, which is the Conservatives. We want to protect Canadians, and we believe that, by passing Bill C-21, we will promote responsible gun control and save lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am, in principle, opposed to closure motions. I do recognize that Bill C-21 has been in front of the House for a long time, and I understand the difficulty that the larger parties have in sorting out how to work collaboratively in the interest of efficient handling of the legislation in this place.

Does the minister not think it would be helpful if Parliament decided to obey the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracies around the world and not allow written speeches? It is my view that, if members had to speak based on their knowledge of the subject matter, it might narrow down the field of the number of speeches we hear.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your ruling on this.

As I said before, the Liberals and the NDP are preparing to quash debate on Bill C-21, limit opposition to only five minutes per amendment and then force votes. As I said, over in the PMO, there is a Prime Minister proud of the basic dictatorship that he has created for himself.

When the Speaker of the House made his ruling, and in that ruling supported a prima facie case of contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, it gave me hope and it ought to give Canadians hope.

The Speaker of the House and I are no different. We are two MPs, elected by our constituents to represent them here in Ottawa. We are both doing our best with the skills and experiences we have. We know that we have to go back to our constituents, face them and account for the decisions that we make in this place.

I speak here today with some hesitancy, as we are not immune to the intimidation that was faced by the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills and other members of the House. I know that speaking on this important topic opens the possibility of being put in the sight of the Communist government in Beijing, much in the same way that I can imagine the Speaker of the House had and was possibly thinking about when he drafted this decision.

For me and those in law enforcement, we have faced these decisions before. Back in the years I was in policing, I faced threats and intimidation, but I always knew that my brothers in blue had my back. There was a sense of being protected from those who wished me harm because we were a team, a family.

In this place we are a family too, but recently the trust that is needed to rely on each other as a family has been eroding. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and its cross-party membership is now in a unique position to rebuild that trust. It will need to look past party differences, just as the Speaker of House did and has been able to do. It will need to take the required time, debate openly and review the situation. It will have a chance to send back a decision that shows support to the MP for Wellington-Halton Hills and other members of the House who have faced the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao on behalf of the Communist Government of China, as well as the others who could possibly could face that, moving forward.

This committee can show Canadians and the Beijing Communist government that, although we disagree on a lot, and I mean a lot, when it comes to protecting Canadian democracy, we are all unwavering. That would send a clear message to Beijing to stay out of our politics, and a strong message to all members of the House that we have each others' backs. Will we admit that we are susceptible to foreign interference, or will the Prime Minister instruct his coalition to continue to cover this up, to steamroll the committee, as they seem eager to do when it comes to domestic policy such as the example I gave with Bill C-21? Will the committee show the world that we are fractionalized with a system of government that can be influenced from the outside? Will the Prime Minister utilize his control through the basic dictatorship he has been building in China's likeness?

I hope that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have the same sense of honour and good conscious that the Speaker of this House showed in the prima facie decision he made.

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

Madam Speaker, the question was this: Why should we care? We should care because we have something to lose. We have a delicately crafted democracy. It is not perfect, but we are proud of it and it is a democracy that we built together and one that we are proud of as Canadians. However, it is fragile. Threats to our democracy are real and they need to be treated as such.

We have heard stories over the last number of weeks about the intimidation tactics that Canadians from China and Canadians with family in China faced in the last election. We have had a member of the Liberal caucus leave the party among allegations that he was part of foreign interference by the Chinese Communist government. He stands accused of having a hand in delaying the return of Canadians held in China because it was politically valuable to the Liberal Party. Now, we have the Conservative MP for Wellington—Halton Hills reveal that he and his family were targets for the Chinese state interference in 2021.

Why, though, did the Government of China want to ensure that the Liberals won the last election and, in fact, the last two elections? Here is why. The Conservative stance on the Chinese Communist government was too principles-based and the resolve of our party was too strong to be advantageous to foreign interference. The Conservative position was in line with 53% of what Canadians believe, which is that the government's response to China in recent years has not been strong enough and that more needs to be done. In fact, a recent poll from the Angus Reid Institute shows that 69% of Canadians believe that the government is scared of standing up to China, including 91% of past Conservative voters, 62% of past NDP voters and 46% of those who have mistakenly voted for the Liberal Party at some point in their life.

Let us not overlook the recent activity with spy balloons that are in Canadian airspace and how our Prime Minister has little to say about the ongoing situation. We know that foreign interference can undermine the integrity of democratic processes, such as elections, by attempting to sway voters or influence political outcomes. We live in a country where corporations cannot legally provide any funding to political candidates. Individuals are limited to contributing $1,700 annually. The reason for this is to prevent our politicians from being bought off by the big money of special interest groups and wealthy individuals. Canadians themselves can only contribute $5,000 to their own campaigns and yet Liberals think that it is okay for the Trudeau Foundation to receive $200,000 from two businessmen identified as being linked to the Communist government in China. That is utter, absolute nonsense. For those listening at home, the House ethics committee is probing a $200,000 donation given to the charity by two men with links to the Chinese Communist government. The committee is deciding whether the donation was an attempt by Beijing to curry favour with the Prime Minister.

If we can just for one minute cut through the political rhetoric and admit to ourselves, like all Canadians already have, that we know this money was intended to buy favour with the Prime Minister, ignoring the reality would be willful blindness on all of our parts. We are sent here to represent our constituents, Canadians, but also to defend our Canadian democracy. If the members opposite need to wonder why they are here or why they cannot stand in their places and say that, when a foreign government that the Prime Minister admires so openly donates a six-figure sum to a foundation in the name of his father and run by his brother, it is at best inappropriate and at worst foreign interference.

This is not just any country getting uncomfortably close with our Prime Minister. It is among the worst in the world for a government's treatment of ethnic minorities, shown by its treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners. If at any point we want to see how far the Prime Minister's admiration of the Beijing leadership goes, we can just ask him to stand up for Uyghurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners in a meaningful way when meeting with Chinese leadership. He will not. He is afraid. He is afraid that he will offend the country he so admires.

The ruling of the Speaker of the House is an important first step, but now the committee needs to be allowed to do its job, which is a tall order with this government. It seems that whenever a committee is trying to do its duty for Canadians and thoroughly investigate or review bills, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners find a way to strangle the committee and steamroll democracy.

Here is an example of that: I sit on the public safety committee, and we are currently reviewing Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. It has been in front of us for quite some time. When Canadians hear that we have been at this for months, it may seem slow, but in fact, we are simply doing a job of government. The government put the bill forward as a handgun bill and then, in a move that can only be seen as averting democratic process, stuffed the bill full of other unrelated amendments, completely changing the scope.

What happened when we brought this it up? It was steamrolled by the Chair in a unilateral decision that it was in order when, in fact, we know it was not. That was upheld again by the Liberal alliance when we challenged the Chair. The Liberals and the NDP are preparing to quash debate on that bill and limit the opposition on each of their amendments to five minutes per amendment and then force votes.

Over in the PMO, there is—

Firearms

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, there they go again; Conservatives are trying to stoke fear. If my colleague had actually read the amendments that are part of Bill C-21, he would have seen that we included a non-derogation clause specifically for indigenous persons, but he did not read them. Instead, the Conservatives are just filibustering. They are about their record of putting cuts to police budgets. They are about weakening our borders.

On this side of the House, we are going to keep our communities safe by strengthening our borders, by putting more resources into law enforcement and by passing strong gun control laws.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, that is exactly what the government is doing. Last week, I was very proud to see that members of our caucus had put forward amendments to Bill C-21 that would strengthen the national ban that the government put into place on AR-15 style firearms, which have absolutely no legitimate recreational purpose in any of our communities. It is only the Conservatives who continue to put forward policies that amount to legalizing AR-15 style firearms. That is the wrong path. They need to get behind Bill C-21 so we can save lives.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the mass casualty commission's recommendations directly reflects the Liberal ban on firearms, Bill C-21. This bill would add firearms without consultation, and even use this tragedy to its advantage. The opposition was fierce; however, a revamped version has reared its ugly head. What we know clearly is that the monster from this tragic event was not a legal gun owner, and nor were his guns legal. In a recent op-ed, the authors state that the focus should be on securing the border, providing mental health support and diverting at-risk youth from gangs.

When will the Prime Minister start addressing violent repeat offenders and stop attacking grandpas who own a hunting rifle?

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

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

Madam Speaker, I say respectfully to that member that I remember those committee meetings very well. I tried very hard, and so did my Conservative colleagues on the committee, to bring forward an urgent study of what happened, how the parole system failed the 11 people who were butchered by knife by that man who was out on parole, and failed the 17 more who ended up in hospital. It was the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history. One would think it would be an urgent priority to review what happened in our parole system. We were given excuses and told to let people do their work. They can do their work, but we need to know now what happened and how to prevent it, with at least an introductory study.

I was very clear that we needed to study that right away and perhaps have a follow-up once we had heard more. That fell on deaf ears. The third-largest mass killing in Canadian history was not a priority for public safety. The committee was too busy with its planning to bring forward the most underhanded amendments such that the bill would constitute the largest hunting rifle ban in Canadian history. It was too busy to study the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history. I could talk all day about that, because I feel quite strongly about it. Why is it that a first nations community that had 11 people butchered by a man on parole was not prioritized? We barely talked about it. The public safety committee has not looked into that. I think it is a failure that we could be talking about if the government were not so occupied with coming after lawful firearms owners. I believe the perpetrator had 59 prior violent crime convictions. Why was he allowed out on parole? I do not know, but 11 people are dead, and 17 more were stabbed with a knife by that vile man.

A lot of knife attacks are happening, and bear mace attacks as well. I have a friend who just told me that his kids got on public transit, in the Calgary area, I believe. His college-aged kids were just going to a party. They are nice young people, and everyone in the whole group was bear-maced. The police told them it was the eighth time that had happened recently. It was the eighth time that some punks had bear-maced innocent people on public transit. The victims lived, so maybe the Liberals do not think that it is a priority to talk about that. I do not know.

There are stabbings where young people and older folks are being stabbed to death on public transit. In fact, there was a violent knife attack on the SkyTrain in Surrey that left a young man in hospital. The suspect, the man who attempted to murder that man with a knife, was let out on bail about nine days later. I am told bail reform is not in the budget. Someone who had stabbed someone and attempted to murder him was out on the streets nine days later. This is Liberal Canada, but it is important to go after lawful gun owners, apparently.

This incident followed the death of a 17-year-old, also in B.C., who was stabbed to death on a bus. He died. He was murdered, by knife, on a bus, just recently. This followed a 16-year-old boy having been stabbed and killed in a Toronto public transit station. These are young people who are being murdered, and there are countless other examples. There was a woman who was ice-picked last year. There was a woman who was set on fire in Toronto, near a public transit stop, I believe. There are elderly people who are being pushed to their deaths.

It is common now for people to feel uncomfortable riding public transit, and we are not talking about bail reform. There is no action coming forward on bail reform and how to clean up our streets, yet we are talking, every other day, about going after lawful gun owners. I can go on about how frustrating this is, and this is to say nothing of what police have experienced in the last year.

The Conservatives have been talking about bail reform for quite some time, but the country really started talking about it quite strongly just as a result of something that happened over Christmas. Nothing the Liberals have announced would have done anything to stop what happened to Greg Pierzchala. He was a young OPP officer, about 27 years old. He was young, and he was keen on the job. On December 27, just two days after Christmas, there was a truck in a ditch. He approached the truck, and the driver shot and killed him. That driver was a repeat violent offender with a lifetime weapons prohibition order, who was on bail at the time. He shot and killed that police officer. The officer is no longer with us, because of our bail system.

That, obviously, sparked a national outrage, and that was when the first letter from the premiers went to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform, obviously. There has been a subsequent one, and police have been very vocal. In fact, the Toronto police, who are stoic people, were getting emotional speaking up at the mike at their meetings about the need for bail reform. Actually, Greg Pierzchala was one of 10 police officers killed in the last year, eight of them on the job. That is an insane number of police murders. It is unbelievable. The police have had a pretty rough go of it over the last number of years.

The morale is very low. These are dedicated men and women who kiss their families goodbye in the morning and are never 100% sure if they are going to see them again, especially after a year like this. Ten of them have died, eight of them on the job. Many of these murders involve violent repeat offenders who should not be out on our streets. It is unbelievable that we are not talking about bail reform and that the government is not making announcements about bail reform or parole reform every day.

These guys, and it is mostly guys, who are getting out over and over again should not be on the streets. I think almost everyone agrees with that except extreme leftists, who want to go soft on crime and seem to have taken over the Liberal Party's crime agenda. It is unbelievable.

If we look at B.C., it is an NDP province. However, to its full credit, even B.C. has written to the Liberal cabinet about all its violent repeat offenders. These are unbelievable statistics. I checked them in the article that was published about a week or two ago to make sure they were right, but it seemed, by the reporting, that these are the statistics.

There were 1,325 violent offenders on trial, but prosecutors, or government lawyers, asked only for detention 516 times. Therefore, of over 1,300 violent criminals, government lawyers only asked that they would not get bail about 500 times. Of those 500 criminals for whom prosecutors actually asked for detention, judges only granted bail denial 222 times. Therefore, of over 1,300 violent repeat offenders in B.C., only 221 of them were actually denied bail. That is astounding. That is less than 20% of violent criminals being denied bail.

Why is the number not higher? It should be asked every single time someone has a violent record, should it not? Why are government lawyers asking only half the time? Actually, they are asking less than 50% of the time. Why are judges only saying that violent repeat offenders with a long rap sheet should not be out on bail less than 20% of the time?

I do not know. I am not a judge or a lawyer, and I do not have the expertise to talk about that. However, the Liberal government and the justice minister in charge of our Criminal Code should be talking about why that is happening and how we can fix it. They should be talking about how our justice system could be better supported with Criminal Code changes and other measures. This could equip our court systems to ensure that the most violent people do not get out on bail, so that the 17-year-old boy in B.C. would not have been stabbed to death, so the 16-year-old boy in Toronto would still be alive and so Greg Pierzchala would still be alive.

On the parole board, there has been a 36% decrease in the number of staff and an 11% funding cut, for some reason. Maybe that is why there are mistakes like what happened in the fall on James Smith Cree Nation. That is where the man I mentioned killed and murdered 11 people, butchering them to death.

It is so frustrating, not just as a Conservative but as a Canadian and a woman who cares about the safety of my family walking down the street. Women already have sort of a sixth sense about this. We are concerned walking at nighttime or getting into an elevator alone with a bunch of men. This is innate in us. To see that, in many cases, women no longer want to ride public transit, especially in Toronto, which is our biggest city, is frustrating.

They are not really talking a lot about that even when we have a clear demand for bail reform. However, Bill C-21, going after lawful firearms owners, is the priority. I will remind folks as well that when the Liberals first brought forward these amendments, they did so in a very sneaky way, in November, before withdrawing them. On November 3, they said they were going to do consultations. We did a couple of consultation meetings at committee, and we brought forward a lot of people to talk about the impact those amendments would have.

The Liberals are saying they are not going after hunting rifles. We brought forward a lot of hunters and experts in that regard, and they have a very different opinion than the Liberals do. The ones who actually use them to hunt have a very different opinion than the Liberals who want to ban them. That is interesting.

The Minister of Public Safety went on a nationwide tour to consult, and he received quite the backlash in many of the meetings he went to. I wonder how many Conservative ridings he went to. I would love to know that, actually. I would imagine it was not very many.

He went to the Yukon. On January 25, in response to his tour to talk to hunters, whose firearms he was looking to take away, the local paper, the Yukon News, said:

None of those who spoke with...[the Minister of Public Safety and the Liberal member for Yukon] were supportive of the proposed legislation. They each gave their reasons. Among them were longtime firearms collectors concerned about a loss of value in their collections; relatively new sport shooters encountering confusing rules...

That is a recurring theme we are hearing from the firearms community and the police who have to enforce these rules. The quote continues:

...and hunters, trappers and resource-industry workers worried that the firearms they rely on to protect themselves from animals in the wilderness will be banned.

In that same article, the quotes from the local people who were “consulted”, or so it was called, by the Minister of Public Safety were quite emotional, which would be the polite word. They are deeply unhappy with what the Liberals are trying to do. There was a lot of that on his tour. He heard it loud and clear, yet he brought forward a very similar definition. Rather than being transparent with the very long list of hundreds of firearms they are looking to ban, they are going to pass it on to a Firearms Advisory Committee.

Despite all these consultations at committee, all these consultations with the Minister of Public Safety and all the things he has heard first-hand from the real, law-abiding people that these things impact, the Liberals are trudging forward and plowing through. The Liberals are determined to, quite quickly, eliminate a lot of hunting rifles from Canada.

At committee, we had a lot of indigenous leaders come and speak to the impact all this would have on them. Bill C-21 has a number of red flag provisions and other things that I will say I thought were red flags when they were originally brought forward. These are supposed to help vulnerable women and indigenous women, and they could be good. I actually stood in the House and asked this: Why do we not split red flags from the bill so that we can usher them along more quickly and take the politics out of it so that we can protect vulnerable people?

I stood in the House. The Minister of Public Safety shouted down the motion I brought forward to do that. It was another good-faith effort from Conservatives to take some of the politics out of this contentious issue. It was shouted down by the Minister of Public Safety; I will never forget that.

Indigenous leaders, women chiefs and others came to committee, and they were very alarmed by some of these red flag laws. They said a number of things. They talked about the red flag laws. In essence, they felt, and I am paraphrasing, that there could be people who have negative views of indigenous people, and they could more easily call in and make up false stories about indigenous people to take their firearms away.

This was a real thing we heard from multiple indigenous leaders. They said, in essence, to paraphrase their sentiments, this would not be good for their community and those who do not like them. That is what came across, and that is not so good. This is supposed to protect indigenous people, particularly women. It does not seem like they want this at all. In fact, they very badly do not want it.

We also heard from law experts. We heard from an organization named the National Association of Women and the Law; there was a Liberal witness. There was also an anti-violence against women Quebec group. I think the thought process from Liberals was for them to support these red flag laws, but all three of the groups that were brought forward said they were terrible. They do not want them. The laws actually further burden women who are being abused by their partners.

It is the exact opposite of what I thought the red flag laws were going to do. Obviously, I am not going to support them. We are not going to support them. I do not believe some of the other opposition parties are either.

We can work together on a few things; that is evident. However, again, this is a measure that was to be brought forward under Bill C-21, and the Liberals were not listening to the people they were trying to help on the issue that they were trying to solve. It is another very clear example that they were not listening to vulnerable women or indigenous people about something that they said was going to help them. This is symptomatic of how the government approaches firearms.

It was pretty interesting. We had one of the most notable Canadian hunters, a really incredible guy from an incredible family. I am talking about Jim Shockey. His daughter is quite a hero for young women hunters across the country. I have to say, one of my sisters follows her Instagram and has for years. He said the following:

Everybody understands hunters are not a threat to your safety or the national security of this country. However, we feel vilified and marginalized. Recently, we've felt attacked. We're not the enemy. We love our country. The taking away of life is obviously a terrible and fundamentally wrong thing, but the taking away of a way of life is also wrong.

That is a powerful quote coming from someone who knows hunting probably better than almost anyone in the country aside from indigenous Canadians, who have been hunting on this land for thousands of years.

When Liberals say this is not a hunting rifle ban, ask hunters. They saw the SKS on the list. They saw other firearms on the list that they commonly use for hunting. Whom should the public believe? Should they believe people who actually hunt, use them for a living and pass them down to their kids? Or should they believe Liberals who, as we have heard from the Prime Minister, say that some hunting guns will have to be banned?

In my opinion, that is just the beginning, obviously. Again, ask the Liberals if this is going to be the last hunting, rifle, shotgun or firearms ban. I would guess that they are going to say no or change the subject quickly.

We have Martin Bourget; he and his wife have a Quebec French hunting show. Hunting in Quebec is a huge, massive industry. They said, “Legitimate gun owners in Canada are deeply puzzled about the very legitimacy of the process set out in Bill C-21 and the enforcement of these measures.” They are asking for nothing less than a study of the bill's true impact on the safety of Canadians and on traditional hunting, harvesting and sport shooting. Of course, we never really got an in-depth study on all those things. We had a couple of consultation meetings, and now the Liberals are really trying to limit debate on the impact of many of these amendments.

I think that Mr. Bourget's wife represents 20,000 female French hunters, which is pretty amazing. I really hope I get a chance to go hunting with them some day. In any case, they are speaking for a large group of hunters, who are not a big fan of the bill. They feel that the consultations have not met the true depth of respect that is needed for our hunting community, our farmers and indigenous Canadians. It is not being met at committee and certainly not being met by the Liberals.

Actually, there is something on consultation. A few years ago, the Liberals did a consultation on firearms, which we found out from an information request they spent over $200,000 on. Of the 133,000 respondents, when asked, in essence, if further measures should be taken against handguns, about 87% said no. When asked the same question about so-called assault-style firearms, I think between 70% and 80% said that no more action was needed. Again, this is a made-up Liberal term and not a firearms term.

I think that is pretty shocking. In the actual consultation that the Liberals spent significant taxpayer dollars on, of the 133,000 people responding, very few of them thought that any of these measures should be undertaken. I assume they kind of just chucked that in the garbage, because they really have not talked about it at all. The evidence is right there, and yet they do not want to look at it or acknowledge that it is, in fact, what Canadians believe. The Liberals talked about some random poll once and that is it, but the 133,000 people who were asked did not show a lot of support for what they are doing. Anyway, these are very inconvenient facts for the Liberals, which we found out through an information request.

Who else did we ask? We talked to someone from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. I think it is one of the oldest associations in the country. It is very notable, reputable and moderate. It is a hunting and angling association, and it is part of the lifeblood of the hunting community. I grew up going to my local game and fish association. Certainly, being from Ontario, I believe this Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters is the largest in the country. I think it represents about 100,000 active members and has an impact on the family members and small communities it supports. However, it said that:

Firearms are not the disease, particularly in a nation like Canada with robust gun laws. Gun violence is often symptomatic of much bigger societal issues.

I would agree with that. It goes on to say:

Taking firearms away from law-abiding Canadians will not reduce the upstream issues that fuel criminal activity and demand for illicit firearms. Therefore, model-based firearm prohibitions will continue to fail as they won’t be able to have a detectable impact on reducing gun violence or enhancing public safety.

Again, I do not know this person's profession, but I do not believe they are a legal expert. However, they have put an obvious statement very eloquently. This seems foreign when we are looking at the Liberal priorities on firearms and the relentless assault on law-abiding Canadians.

Marc Renaud, president of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs said in French, which I translate into English, “we strongly believe in the power of education and prevention for promoting firearms safety. Our members want to feel safe, too, and they hope new laws intended to improve public safety focus on the right targets. Hunters and sport shooters who comply with the training requirements and get the right licences are the wrong target.”

Again, this was in response to the G-4 and G-46 amendments on the definition in the long list from November 2022. They brought forward a very similar definition, and the list will just be passed over to the firearms advisory committee, as was said today in the House by the Liberal parliamentary secretary.

We are here again. These are the comments from hunters, from large hunting advocacy groups, and the Liberals are still saying this is not a hunting rifle ban.

Lynda Kiejko is Olympian in women's pistol shooting. Many people may not know this, and again those who follow the Olympics would know this, Canadians are very proud of our Olympians, that we have Olympic sport shooters and have for over a century.

If we look at hunting just like anything else, hunters and farmers use them as tools. People in the military or police are going to use firearms. Who is the best shot? Who is the most accurate at targets? That comes from the firearm community. That is very obvious.

It is actually a sense of real pride for someone who is a good marksman. Someone who does not know anything about hunting or sport shooting would not understand that, I get it. However, those who are from a hunting community, every person knows that when people get a big buck, they sit around the table while the hunters relive their epic story about the hunt. They will say how many yards away it was, whether it was windy. They recount a great story of their great hunt. It is part of the culture. For indigenous Canadians, it has been the same for thousands of years. This is important.

Those who are a good marksman or markswoman like to brag about that. This is very normal and natural in hunting and sport shooting communities. Of course, sport shooting also comes, in part, from that.

It is incredible that Canada has some of the best marksmen in the world, and Lynda Kiejko and her family are some of the best marksmen in the country. In particular, she is in the women's pistol shooting.

The Liberal efforts to freeze, ban or whatever they are saying in Bill C-21 about handguns really would not do any of that. As we have heard from our Olympic sport shooters and our national sport shooters from IPSC and the like, which is a national sport shooting association that competes internationally, all it really would do is impact their sport shooting community. It makes it very difficult for them to get new parts for the tools they use when they compete. It makes it very difficult for them to bring their firearms in and out of the country for competition. It makes it very difficult for Canada to host any sort of sport shooting competition. It makes it very challenging.

The World Police and Fire Games are coming up. Winnipeg is hosting those games, which it is pretty incredible. It is a nightmare to try to get firearms in for the sport shooting part of that competition. Again, there is a real sense of pride for Winnipeg and Canada that we are hosting the World Police and Fire Games this summer. It is very exciting.

Lynda Kiejko is a proud Olympian, and all Canadians should be very proud of her. I am, and I know the Conservatives are. She said:

I take great pride in representing my country on the world stage, as do all athletes. I'm sad that due to the handgun ban, the order in council, Bill C-71 and this proposed legislation, I will not be able to represent Canada on the world stage. Athletes who come after me won't even have an opportunity to compete, as they will have no access to competition firearms.

The Liberals, with Bill C-21, and this is out of the mouths of the sport shooters themselves, are wiping out sport shooting in Canada. Certainly this would be the last generation that ever sport shoots, with pistols for sure.

When challenged about that at committee, the Liberals looked down their noses at our sport shooters, in essence saying, and people can look at the video footage, that Canada did not want that anymore, that they did not want those dirty Olympians sport shooters. I am paraphrasing, obviously. This is my tone being put on the Liberals, but people can look at the video. In essence, they are looking down their nose, judging sport shooters, saying that they are not welcome anymore in Canada, that they do not want them, and to get out.

That is the sense I walked away with when I watched that interaction between the Liberals and our Olympian. I could not believe it. Everyone should be proud of our Olympians, especially our best marksman, and a woman. That is awesome.

We will fight very hard to ensure that we can continue to compete internationally with IPSC and Olympic sport shooting. Again, once this passes, and the Liberals already did it through regulation, we will see the death of sport shooting in Canada, particularly pistols first and then likely the rest, if the Liberals get to proceed with their true agenda here.

It is very frustrating in that regard, that we have real people, who use these as tools, coming forward to committee and saying that the Liberals are banning their hunting rifles, they are banning their ability to compete in sport shooting on the world stage, representing Canada with pride, yet the Liberals are saying they are not, that this is not true.

Who do we believe? The people who are impacted by it or the Liberals who do not want people to own firearms, which is what I think is really going on here.

What about the data. We could talk a lot about the facts of this, because in committee we see the Liberals bring forward folks of various stripes. We are all are allowed to bring forward our own witnesses, which is part of the democratic process. However, that is the party that consistently says it follows the science, it believes in data over and over again, except when the science does not suit its agenda. It is very clear.

Some of the best researchers in the world are from Canada, when it comes to firearms. Dr. Caillin Langmann is an award-winning researcher, highly recognized in the medical and scientific research community for his work. He has scrutinized every possible data point in Canada, looking at the impacts of subsequent gun control and what that has done or not done on homicide. Whether it is mass homicide, homicide, domestic homicide, he has looked at it all for decades. He has looked at Australia and has also commented on the U.K. as well.

Not only has he done his own research, but he has reviewed the research of others because of his ability to heavily scrutinize data. He is widely recognized in the scientific community for his high level of integrity and scrutiny on this. I have not seen one piece of evidence even close to the integrity of Dr. Caillin Langmann when it comes to the impact of gun control on homicide. There is nothing that holds a candle to it. No one has brought anything forward. I have heard that, in the court cases that are ongoing on this right now, the government has not really brought forward any evidence to make its case for this either, but that is another discussion that I will likely get to at some point as well.

Dr. Caillin Langmann, after all of his research, said, “the evidence so far demonstrates that the proposed handgun and semi-automatic rifle bans would have no associated reduction in homicide rates or mass homicide rates. Methods that have been shown to be more effective in reducing firearms homicides involve targeting the demand side of the firearms prevalence in criminal activity.” It seems very obvious and this is what police have been telling us, but he has actually seen that in the data.

In fact, what he and some other researchers of high repute have found is that the only real impacts we can have in terms of responsible gun ownership are basic things that we have had for almost 30 years. We can talk about background checks, licensing and safe storage. Those are the only proven things to have an impact on homicide and public safety when it comes to firearms, and those are things that are very much supported by the Conservative Party of Canada and that we have had for a number of years. That is responsible gun ownership, and we are behind that 100%.

Only people licensed, trained and vetted by police should ever have ownership of firearms. That is what we believe; that is very clear. That is what the evidence says is important to protect public safety, yet the Liberals are ignoring the scientific evidence by highly reputable researchers and medical doctor. They are cherry-picking the information that suits their narrative, which has been widely shredded by Dr. Caillin Langmann with his high degree of integrity and research ability.

We also have Dr. Teri Bryant, chief firearms officer of Alberta's Chief Firearms Office. I have never met a person who is as much of a firearms expert as she is. It is incredible. She can be asked about any firearm, and this woman knows. It is unbelievable, and great to see. She said:

Even after the withdrawal of G-4 and G-46, Bill C-21 continues to undermine confidence in our firearms control system while contributing nothing to reducing the violent misuse of firearms. Bill C-21 is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. Prohibiting specific types of firearms is not an effective way of improving public safety. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been used on more effective approaches, such as the enforcement of firearms prohibition orders, reinforcing the border or combatting the drug trade and gang activity.

Again, it seems self-evident, but to hear from an expert who is charged with this at the provincial level is refreshing. We had her expertise at committee. All of this was said, and yet there really was no change in what was brought forward. We asked a number of questions on the definition.

The Liberals brought forward something else, which I should have mentioned at the beginning, but it is unsettling because we are not really clear on what the implications will really be. It seems good kind of, but then maybe it is really not. Based on the Liberals' track record of lack of transparency on this, I am deeply concerned. There is, in essence, sort of a forward-looking clause that they have brought forward for that definition. It is a grandfathering clause, in a way. Anyone who owns these firearms that Liberals are looking to ban now apparently gets to keep them. Who would have thought? The Liberals are saying, for now, that those people get to keep them.

We will see what the firearms advisory committee says in a couple of months, but it is saying that anything that falls under this new definition the Liberals have brought forward, which is really the old definition, people will get to keep those and they can keep buying and selling them. However, they cannot buy the brand-new models that are manufactured, any new version of these firearms.

That sounds okay, I guess. It is just kind of limiting. They cannot buy the almost exact same firearms that are new, but they can buy existing ones. It does not really follow. Further, it does not follow that the Liberals have been getting up in the House and at press conferences for years saying things about these firearms, that they are weapons of war designed for killing people. They have been taking that position. They have been very clear that these are terrible things that no one should own, yet now they have brought forward a new definition that allows everybody to keep them. That does not make sense.

We spent about an hour and a half asking clarifying questions about this. I am not reassured that what we are seeing is really the case. If it is, I feel quite confident that they are going to just shoot this over. The Liberals are going to say that people can keep them but they are going to send it over to the advisory committee and it will ban it for them. I really think that is going to happen.

People will let their guard down. The firearms advisory committee will let its guard down with this new definition to let people keep firearms, but people are not going to get to keep them. I believe that the firearms advisory committee, as was alluded to when asked about the SKS, will have to do the dirty work. It will have to look at that very long list of firearms that was hundreds of pages long and had hundreds of hunting rifles on it. The committee will be looking at that list and looking to ban those firearms. We heard as much today. Therefore, people should not be reassured for one moment by this new definition. It is leading people down the garden path, letting people let their guard down.

However, we know what is going on here. The Conservatives, along with law-abiding citizens in our country, private property owners who are trained, tested and vetted by police, will continue to stand up for those people who have been repeatedly kicked by the Liberal government and treated terribly, like they were criminals. That seems to be the focus.

I know I am going to take a pause and restart at some point, but just to conclude for this hour and 10 minutes I have been speaking, the minister seems to have really cranked down on his remarks about who the Conservatives are standing with. He has been vicious in talking about who we are standing with. I being the lead, he is talking about me and he is talking about the Leader of the Opposition, who I am standing with when I am talking about law-abiding citizens and fighting for firearms' owners. He makes outlandish, unfounded claims about who I am standing with when I am in the House talking about this. I find it deeply offensive.

Here is why. Who am I standing with? I went to a game and fish association event in rural Manitoba, in my hometown, Beausejour, Manitoba, just the other day. I spoke to people about the work I was doing in the House to fight for their way of life. A big, burly, country boy came up to me at the end as I was leaving and asked to speak to me. He wanted to thank me for fighting for firearms' owners. He looked me in the eye and I could see he was visibly getting emotional. He thanked me for fighting for them, for standing up for them, for always fighting against the Liberals and for signing up for their way of life. He had to start walking because he was getting emotional, a big country boy. I could not believe it. I have been getting that a lot.

Those are the people I am fighting for, those good Canadians. I will fight relentlessly for them every single day without stopping. We will pick this up again the next time.

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

Madam Speaker, I will remind the Liberal member that, if he is looking to throw me off, he is severely underestimating me, just like many a man before him. I have a lot to say, and I will be here for quite some time, so hopefully he is hydrated and fed because he is going to be waiting a long time.

I have more to say on the announcement last week, which was impacted by Bill C-21. The minister at the same time announced the firearms advisory committee, the so-called new definition, but with the old definition, but sneakier.

He also announced that there is going to be something about a permanent alteration to magazines, which we have already, but the way he worded it would signify to me that there is going to be a change in what that means. When we tried to ask about it at committee, we did not get any answers because apparently it was not technically within Bill C-21, but he announced it at the same time he was talking about the bill. The Liberals and officials would not answer our question, but what was taken from that in the firearms community is that the permanent alteration of magazines would go a step further than what is being done now and would impact many a firearm that really is Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle.

For example, the Lee Enfield, is a very popular firearm. It was the British firearm until about the 1950s. It is well made and has been passed down through generations. It is made completely from wood stock and is exactly what we would think of and picture when we think about Grandpa Joe going out to hunt deer. However, one cannot permanently alter the magazine capabilities of that firearm without destroying it. There is no way. Therefore, is the minister now saying that he is going to destroy the Lee Enfield? He will not answer. I have urged people to write to the minister to ask him about that because he will not answer our questions, nor will the Liberals on the public safety committee.

I will also note that the tubular magazine hunting rifle, where the bullet goes right into the tube because there is no magazine, as in the image the Liberals are trying to bring forward, is an old school, 1800s-level technology. For example, the Winchester 1873, I think it is called, is a tubular magazine firearm that holds seven to 14 cartridges or bullets. It cannot be altered in any way, as that would destroy the firearm.

These are heirloom firearms. I am pretty sure my grandfather had one in the closet for when coyotes would try to get into the chicken coop. That is how old school these firearms are. There are hundreds of versions of these in rural Canada. It is owned by collectors, and certainly by hunters and indigenous Canadians. If the SKS is popular in indigenous communities, so too is the Lee Enfield, so why would the Liberals not be clear on what they are talking about with respect to these permanent alterations to magazines? Why are they being so cagey about that? Is it because they do not know? Is it ignorance, or are they hiding something? I do not know.

I have given them the benefit of the doubt before. However, here we are, and they are forcing an end to the democratic discussion and scrutiny that is needed on this bill at committee today, so I really do not trust anything they are about to say on that, if they say anything at all, because they have refused to answer my questions and our questions at the public safety committee about the Lee Enfield and tubular magazine long guns.

While this has been going on, and we have heard so much about this, the Liberals are attacking us, particularly me. I suppose it is because I have been the lead on firearms. They talk about the Conservatives more in their announcements than they talk about the crime that is wreaking havoc in our communities, which they are not doing a lot about.

I want to say that I know this debate is very heated and very personal to people on all sides. I have always done my best to lead this discussion from our perspective, from a professional and authentic standpoint, and what really shocked me was last week, or it might have been the week before, when the minister was announcing phase one of his so-called buyback, which I will get to. He said, in essence, that Conservatives were at fault and bear some of the responsibility for the abuse the Liberals are getting from what they say are gun owners. I have no idea, as I have not seen that.

It is interesting that they talk about it as if we have not received any abuse from people who do not agree with our position. I can tell members that I have certainly received very threatening abuse for the position we have taken. I am the lead on this file. I have received many threats and have been concerned for my safety in this debate, so I was very offended when I heard them trying to blame Conservatives, particularly me because I am the lead in this regard, when I have not been spared or kept from any of that abuse myself.

I am undeterred. I will continue on. I will not be bullied into silence on this. However, just to be clear, the rhetoric from the Liberals is trumping up a lot of hate toward me and others on this side of the House as well. I do not like talking about it. We do not want copycats. We do not want any heroes from these evil, sadistic people, but when I heard something like that, I thought that I had to say something.

I have kept quiet, but I will not stand idly by while the Minister of Public Safety blames me for the abuse he has gotten for his underhanded policies, when I too have suffered abuse because of his rhetoric. I just wanted to put that on the record. I hope to speak to the minister personally about that.

We are talking a lot about firearms. Of course, exclusively, Bill C-21 only impacts, with the so-called handgun freeze or ban, which is really not any of that, people who follow the law. They are the trained, tested and vetted Canadian citizens who are approved by the RCMP to own firearms. Those are really the only people who are impacted by all of these measures since the May 2020 OIC and Bill C-71 before it. It only impacts regular, everyday Canadians who are legally allowed to own firearms. They are heavily vetted Canadians, who are legally allowed to own firearms.

However, the government continues to bring forward measure after measure to attack this group of people. Meanwhile, criminals are running rampant on our streets. I have talked at length about the crime issues. Canadians know full well what has been going on, on public transit and on the streets of Toronto. Everywhere we go in Canada there seems to be horrific headlines of innocent people being attacked by complete strangers who are deranged.

We are facing very serious issues, yet the Liberal budget 2023 really failed to address those violent crime issues. In fact, violent crime was not mentioned once, zero times, in that budget.

Do members know what else was not mentioned once in that budget? Bail reform was not mentioned once in the budget and has not been mentioned in the priorities of that budget from the Minister of Public Safety, despite the fact that every premier of every province and territory in Canada has written two letters to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform because of what is happening in their provinces and territories with crime and repeat violent offenders continuing to get bail and getting back on our streets, hurting Canadians.

When have we ever heard every premier in the country agreeing on a letter? It is very rare. Maybe when they are asking for health care funding, but aside from that, it is a very rare occurrence. There have now been two letters sent to the Prime Minister.

There are also municipal police forces. I just spoke at the big ten police conference, which included every major police association, municipal police forces across the country. I just flew to Calgary last week to speak to them. They are demanding bail reform. Every big city mayor in Ontario is demanding bail reform. While everyone seems to agree on bail reform, there has been no meaningful action or change taken by the Minister of Public Safety on bail reform. I will remind those watching of violent crime in this country, which is up 32% from 2015 to 2021.

When we get to 2022 stats, it will be deeply concerning, I am going to guess that they are going to be way up, just based on the headlines, but they are up 32% between 2015 and 2021. It equates to 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year, which is an insane amount of additional crime that the police are having to deal with, despite police numbers really suffering, which I will talk more about in a minute. We are seeing that crime wave steadily increase, year by year, under the Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety's watch. That is all happening.

On that, bail reform is a huge issue. If we look at Vancouver, there were 6,000 crime incidents, interactions with police, for crime. Of these, 40 people were responsible for 6,000 interactions with police. Those 40 people are sure keeping police busy in Vancouver. These are violent repeat offenders causing havoc on transit, when we walk down the street with one's family and when we are trying to enjoy the parks. There are 40 people causing 6,000 interactions with police in one year, yet there are crickets about bail reform. They say, “Oh, we are meeting and talking about it”, but that is all we hear. It has been months.

In fact, the Victoria police recently put out a news release about a vile rapist who committed 10 sexual assaults with a weapon. Why was he released? The police wanted to make sure the public knew why it was not their fault he was released. At the bottom of the news release, there is a question that asks, “Why was this person released?” I think this is consistent on their news releases, when it is relevant. It was because of Bill C-75. That is a Liberal bill from a few years ago that made bail, in essence, the default for violent repeat offenders. They got bail by default.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. We are seeing a massive crime surge, and this is one of the reasons police are underlining this and making this heard by MPs over and over again. That is all going on. We are hearing through Toronto police statistics that of the 44 murders, I think it was either last year or in 2021, in over half, 24 or 26 of the 44 murders, the murderers were out on bail at the time. Over half of 44 murders could have been prevented if the Liberals had not brought in such a weak bail regime. They are getting up at the mike and talking about how this so-called new definition, old definition, no list, sneaky list given to the firearms advisory council is going to solve crime, or is one of the things that are going to solve crime.

It is not going to do anything about the people in Toronto who are getting out on bail and murdering people. Toronto police will remind us that about nine out of 10 firearms used in crime in Toronto, mostly handguns, are smuggled in from the U.S. We could outlaw, and I am sure the Liberals are working on it, every single handgun legally owned in this country, and the situation will get worse in cities. The statistics will continue to go up because these criminals are not legally owning the guns. Most of them are prohibited from ever going near a firearm.

Most repeat violent offenders should be in jail, because they smuggle the firearms in quite easily through the Prime Minister's very porous border, through which he has allowed all these drugs and guns to come into the country. That includes human trafficking and all kinds of other things he has allowed under his watch. They are flowing into Toronto and other big cities, such as Montreal and Winnipeg. I have seen the firearms myself, as the Winnipeg police have shown me smuggled ones. There are 3-D-printed guns as well. People are using 3-D printers and printing plastic handguns that are going for $7,000 a pop on the streets of Winnipeg. Bill C-21 would really not do a lot about that.

We worked together on an amendment to perhaps give police a teeny extra tool, which I supported, but going after lawful firearms owners is not going to do anything about the problems in Toronto. Nothing in Bill C-21 would really have stopped the murders of those 20-odd people who were murdered by those on bail who smuggled guns in or printed them. The Liberals say they are increasing maximum sentencing on gun smugglers. That is technically true, but in reality it is baloney. One of my Conservative colleagues, who did great work, made an information request to the government asking how many people have received the maximum sentence, up to right now, for gun smuggling. Do members know, for the eight years that the Prime Minister has ruled the country, how many people got the maximum 10-year sentence for gun smuggling activities? Zero people have gotten the maximum, so to increase it to 14 years is really not going to do a whole heck of a lot.

Perhaps what they should have done is to bring in mandatory minimums for gun smuggling. That would have taken criminals off the street. That would have actually done something, maybe. Conservatives were looking at maybe doing that with an amendment, but we were told it was out of scope so we could not bring forward mandatory maximums. Maybe that is something the member for Carleton, as prime minister of the country, will look at, because that would make a real, actual difference in cracking down on gun smuggling.

I will remind the House that, at the same time as the Liberals were going after lawful firearms owners to such a degree, with so many taxpayer dollars and so much effort by the Minister of Public Safety, in the fall, the Minister of Justice brought forward a bill, which he apparently celebrated quite excitedly when it was passed, to remove mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes and violent crimes. Does everyone want to know what the list of those crimes is? On the list is robbery with a gun. Someone can rob a store with a gun, and it is no longer guaranteed that they will go to jail. That is the Liberal Prime Minister's vision of what we should do about crime: People can rob someone at gunpoint, and there is no longer a mandatory minimum for them.

The list continues with extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting, knowing the firearm is unauthorized; and discharging a firearm with intent, including things like drive-by shootings. There is no longer mandatory prison time for the people who commit these offences. Also on the list, there is using a firearm in the commission of an offence, or breaking the law with a gun; there is no longer a mandatory prison time for this. For possession of a firearm, knowing its possession is unauthorized, or illegally possessing a firearm, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For all those criminals in Toronto, it was a good day when Bill C-5 passed.

There is also possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. A person could have a prohibited gun with a whole bunch of ammunition, and there is no longer mandatory prison time for them. Again, gangs are celebrating every time the Liberal Prime Minister is elected. For possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, stealing one, in essence, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, excluding firearms ammunition, there is no mandatory prison time.

For discharging a firearm recklessly, there is no longer mandatory prison time. People die in cities because there are gangsters discharging firearms recklessly all the time, firearms they have smuggled in or 3D-printed. There is no longer mandatory prison time for them. In fact, in that same bill, Bill C-5, the Liberals brought forward a supposedly improved option for people who commit sexual assault. Now the law ensures that people who commit sexual assault, rape, do not have to go to prison. They can actually serve house arrest in the comfort of their homes. Rapists can serve their sentence playing video games, with their feet up, in their own homes. It is unreal. I should not be laughing about it, but it is so outrageous and ridiculous that it is hard for me, as a woman, to wrap my head around a so-called feminist government saying that rapists can serve house arrest for their sentence. This just happened in Quebec, where a vile rapist violently raped a woman and got zero days in prison and only 20 months under house arrest.

This is all in the scope of what the Liberals view as their crime priorities. They are getting up at the mike every other day, announcing new gun control measures to go after folks who are lawfully allowed to own firearms, and saying that that is going to make a difference. What would make a difference is repealing Bill C-5 and making sure violent criminals and rapists go to jail. That would make a difference in public safety.

It is not just about firearms. In fact, a lot of the crime we are seeing involves knives. Where is the conversation about knives? We just had what I believe was the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history, and we barely heard a peep about that, certainly not from the Liberals. We tried to study it at committee, and they would not let us. It was in the fall, the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history. A man who got out on parole despite—

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be talking today. I take that back, I am not very happy to be talking today in the House of Commons on the circumvention of the democratic process and the very important discussion we are having on Bill C-21. I have a lot to say about the many amendments that were being discussed on Bill C-21, and I may not have the right to talk about those, other than in a very limited way at committee, if this time allocation motion passes today.

I want to put on the record what we are really talking about.

The Prime Minister has made his true agenda very clear to Canadians very recently, in the last four months, while we have been having this discussion on Bill C-21 and the Liberal effort to expand it to be the largest hunting-rifle ban in Canadian history. When the Prime Minister was pressed about this after enormous backlash from the hunting, sport shooting, farming and indigenous communities, he did admit that taking hunting rifles away was the goal when he said, “Our focus now is on saying okay, there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”.

The Prime Minister said it himself. He has let Canadians know what his true intentions are, and so no matter what the Liberals talk about, no matter what slogans, quick words or terminology they want to use, make up or pull out of thin air, he has made it very clear that the Liberal government, in partnership with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, are going after firearms used to hunt by Canadian hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians. There is a lot to talk about today, but, again, I would underline what the motion would do if passed.

The discussion at committee that we are having about Bill C-21, now that the Liberals have let us resume the process on Bill C-21 discussion at committee, is proceeding quite well. We have done almost half the amendments, and there are many amendments, in just two meetings. Considering how contentious this is, that is record time.

Also, considering the Liberals reintroduced a so-called “new definition” to the previous version, which is almost the same, really put shockwaves through the firearms community in Canada. Members could imagine that our scrutiny as opposition parties is very high, and so it is quite miraculous that we have actually managed to get through that and half of the amendments for Bill C-21, which amounts to inches of paperwork. The bill would impact 2.3 million gun owners, their families, their communities, hundreds of millions of dollars in our economy and tens of thousands of jobs, not to mention centuries of culture and heritage in Canada. It is surprising that the parties worked so well at committee, and we have gone over almost half of the amendments in only two meetings, which is quite surprising. So, why the need for the motion before us?

Well, it is very interesting. Part of the work that we have been doing at committee is to, of course, heavily scrutinize Bill C-21, and the very sneaky and underhanded amendments that the Liberals introduced at the 11th hour of committee back in, I believe, November 2022, which was when everything blew up about Bill C-21. Hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians saw the true feelings of this government, which is that it would come after hundreds of their firearms.

Remember, Bill C-21 is supposed to be the so-called “handgun ban”, which it is not really, but the Liberals expanded it to banning hunting rifles and many hundreds of long guns. Of course, Conservatives, right off the bat, said, “Well, that is not in the scope of the bill.” We went to vote at committee to rule it out of scope and to kick this part out of Bill C-21 for good. However, the NDP teamed up with the Liberals and voted down that out-of-scope vote. We could have stopped this right at the beginning if not for the NDP. Of course, its members are working very closely with the Liberals and their true agenda to take away firearms from hunters, sport shooters, farmers and indigenous Canadians.

Then, I think the NDP was having some remorse. Obviously, in their rural and northern communities, there was significant backlash. I know for a fact that the NDP member from northern Ontario got a lot of backlash. The NDP sort of moved to almost wanting to rule this out of scope, which we appreciated and the hunters appreciated. Now they have completely backtracked, despite almost the exact same definition coming in, but it is actually much worse, which I will talk about in a minute.

Again, Conservatives, in our diligence, at committee last week moved to rule this out of scope again, because the bill is not about long guns, it is not about banning hunting rifles. Yet, the Liberals, working with the NDP, are trying very hard to make that within the scope of the bill. They voted that down yet again. So, it is very convenient to have today's time allocation motion, which is very long and talks about a lot of things.

In essence, what is really important to remember is that this will expand the scope of the bill. They are retroactively expanding the scope of Bill C-21 so that we cannot have it ruled out of scope. Of course, as a last-ditch effort there was a parliamentary procedure we could have tried. That would have been to go right to the Speaker to rule this out of scope of Bill C-21. Considering he represents a rural riding with tons of hunters, sport shooters and farmers, I would imagine he would have considered it, especially considering that we are right and it certainly is outside the scope. I find it very convenient that that is part of the objective of today's motion. It is within the scope. That eliminate all options for us to have it ruled out of scope. No longer do we have any parliamentary procedure left to have this ruled out of scope. It is very important for people to understand that.

This is a nuclear option. This is what happens when committees go awry and there are hours of filibusters with nothing moving. That is all that was happening at committees last week. We went through half of the amendments in a highly contentious bill at only two meetings; two meetings, which is pretty impressive by every measure that I have seen in my time as a parliamentarian. There is no reason for this at all. In fact, the NDP member at committee has spoken more than almost anybody in the last two meetings.

It does not really make sense why the Liberals are trying to forcibly limit debate the way they are doing it. If this passes at committee, we will only have five minutes to ask any questions about each clause. If people ever watch me, which I know a lot of people interested in this have, we have to ask the officials questions and ask for clarification.

Again, this impacts 2.3 million gun owners, their families and hundreds of millions of dollars of the economy; tens of thousands of jobs, centuries of culture and heritage in Canada, so the idea that we would limit debate so severely is very concerning to us, especially since we have been enacting in good faith and have gone through half of the amendments in two meetings. I cannot stress that enough.

I was very surprised to see this over the weekend. I have to be honest that it was a real slap in the face to the work that we have been doing at committee. If we wanted to drag it out, we could still be talking about that definition. There are so many ambiguities in that so-called new definition we could easily be talking about that still, yet we had our questions. We recognized that there are other things to talk about at committee. It is the public safety committee and we are in a public safety crisis in this country because of repeat violent offenders that the Liberals keep letting out of jail. I will talk about that later.

There are so many things we should be talking about at the public safety and national security committee so we are moving along. This is what we get; a real lesson to me about working together at committee. I have learned my lesson today about giving any benefit of the doubt or acting in good faith at all. Obviously, it is upsetting because we have been working hard at committee and doing our due diligence. This is what we get: forcing the elimination of proper debate and scrutiny on Bill C-21 amendments that impact millions of people. I think I have harped on that enough. Maybe I will come back to it later.

Let us talk about this new definition. It is really not new. It is just almost like lipstick on a pig, for the lack of a better expression.

I will outline the old definition. It said a firearm that is “a rifle or a shotgun that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed." That was the original definition. That was clause G4. If folks have heard of G4, that was G4, along with a number of other things from the May 2020 OIC, which we are all very familiar with. It was also provided in a very short order, in a very sneaky, underhanded way, with clause G46, which folks will remember was hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages long and looked to ban an additional, almost 500, long guns. That is where the infamous SKS is found, which is very popular with hunters and indigenous. Again, that list was massive. It was about three inches thick. They dropped that in a very sneaky and underhanded way, along with this definition.

Months went by. There was a massive uproar with hundreds of thousands of phone calls, letters and social media posts from the firearms community across Canada. The Liberals, for once, relented and withdrew G46 and G4. I have never seen that before. That was actually quite shocking. I have never seen them back down on anything before. That was round one, as we found out.

Round two, here we are yet again with almost no change. Actually, I would argue that it is worse now. I will tell the House why.

I just read the old definition. This is the new one. The definition includes a firearm “that is not a handgun that discharges centrefire ammunition“, which was mentioned before, “in a semi-automatic manner”, which was also mentioned before, “and that was originally designed with a detachable magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more.” There are weasel word changes there, but they are very subtle. The reason they mention a firearm that is not a handgun is interesting.

There is more weaselling manoeuvring here. The French translation for what they originally had was “fusil de chasse”, which means “hunting rifle”. That was the direct French translation of what the Liberals were trying to ban late last year, but of course there are tens of thousands of hunters, sport shooters and farmers in rural Quebec, which the Bloc forgets, but there are, and they were in an uproar, obviously. Therefore, the government has worked it out so that at least it does not say “hunting rifle” in French, but that is the translation of what it was trying to ban just in November. Let us just be clear about that. The government just switched around the words a bit, which is very interesting.

What is very problematic about this is that the government has mostly boasted or talked at length about how it is not bringing forward the big list, not to worry about the big list and the government is not going to ban those in legislation. That was what the public could scrutinize. There were almost 500 additional rifles and shotguns in there, many of which are very commonly used hunting rifles. There were a lot of them in there and the public could at least see the list. People did see it, and they were shocked at the number of hunting rifles being banned. The government said not to worry, and that it was not bringing forward the list again, just the definition.

However, what the government is doing in a very sneaky, underhanded way seems to be a theme for the government when it comes to banning hunting rifles, which is by doing it through the back door. The Liberals are bringing forward a firearms advisory committee, and they keep referring to it. When asked about the SKS, for example, which does not technically fall under this definition but was on the original list, the Liberals have as much as told us that the firearms advisory committee will look to ban that. The minister has said that and the parliamentary secretary has referred to that. Immediately, when asked about the SKS, the answer is that the firearms advisory committee will be looking at that.

What is this firearms advisory committee? The Liberals are saying it is a non-partisan group of experts they are putting together. We have heard that before. The Liberals have had similar advisory committees for firearms, and they have had some of the biggest anti-gun groups in the country on the so-called advisory committee they had before, in a previous iteration. Therefore, I do not trust for one minute that there are going to be advocates for lawful firearm ownership for hunters, sport shooters, farmers and indigenous Canadians in this regard and from this perspective on that committee. Not for one minute do I trust that this is going to be the case.

The Liberals keep referring to that committee whenever we ask about the SKS. Therefore, to me, it is very clear. In the language that was used just today in the House was very telling. The member said that they will take a look at that, referring to the SKS, and the 482 firearms to decide which ones to move forward with. When the member was asked about the SKS, she would be referring to the firearms committee. She was talking about deciding which ones to move froward with banning.

Again, it is very sneaky because there is no list we can scrutinize. It is just some unelected body. The firearms advisory committee would be a committee of so-called experts, which we know will be partisan anti-gun groups from the country. They will be coming up with lists to ban, so this is worse than what we had before because now we cannot see the list. It is likely not even going to be announced. It is just going to be a new list added to the OIC or some other version of it, and people will find out somehow down the road what they can no longer own. It is a very arbitrary list, indeed.

I will remind folks that, in May 2020, after the worst mass shooting and worst mass killing in Canadian history, in the hours and days following that, when people had not had the chance to bury their loved ones or properly mourn the people who had been lost by that vile, sick killer, the government was scheming to bring forward the May 2020 OIC. It did, and there were 1,500 long guns that were banned in the cloak of darkness during the middle of the pandemic, as it had hit Canada just a month and a half prior. The government banned that and has subsequently added 400 more long guns to that over the last couple of years. Then, in November, there were another almost 500 added on.

The Liberals are not going to stop. If we were to ask any Liberal if this is going to be the last firearm ban they are going to bring forward, I would be shocked if any of them said yes because, again, this firearms committee is going to be bringing forward tons more firearms to ban. The Liberals keep referring to the committee when we ask about the SKS, which is a ubiquitous hunting gun in this country, so I do not trust them at all.

Again, we have been acting in good faith, and here we are with this time allocation motion to limit democratic debate.

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

Madam Speaker, we miss the member on the committee, although we welcome his colleague. His contributions to this bill have been important and he is absolutely right.

Waiting in line at the public safety committee is Bill C-20, a bill that would provide important oversight for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, something that, for many year, has been called for to enhance that oversight for the RCMP, but also provide oversight for CBSA for the very first time.

In addition to that, we have Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity. The member is absolutely correct. We have two important bills waiting, but we cannot get to them until we finish Bill C-21.

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

Madam Speaker, in a few days, it will be one year since the government introduced Bill C‑21. One year is usually enough time for the government and the opposition parties to debate a bill.

That is not what happened with Bill C‑21. The regular debate was held in the House, then the bill was referred to committee. After consulting with experts, the government proposed new amendments on assault weapons. Not everyone was on board, because the government did not communicate its intention properly and withdrew its amendments in February. That left the government 13 weeks before it came back here with another amendment, which it proposed last week.

During those 13 weeks, we could have debated Bill C‑21 and amended it in committee, but we did not because the government was not ready. A week after proposing its new amendments, the government is asking us to limit debate on Bill C‑21.

Does my colleague agree that the only one responsible for the fact that we still have not passed Bill C‑21 is the government, which is unable to work for the people?

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

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the hon. member to read the bill, because there are two provisions in the bill, Bill C-21, that would increase the penalties for firearms crimes from 10 years to 14 years.

It is ludicrous to say that the government is trying to ban all firearms. In fact, we took the time to ensure what we were putting in the bill was respectful of hunters and indigenous peoples, but by the same token keeping Canadians safe from the kinds of firearms that were designed for the battlefield. There is a difference between what hunters are using and what is being used in the battlefield. To conflate the two, as the Conservative Party and the hon. member do, is unfair to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been clear since the bill was first introduced that the Conservative Party had no interest in advancing this transformational legislation. Rather than asking relevant questions of officials, last week Conservative members of the committee spent over three hours of the committee's time parroting the speaking points of the gun lobby. In addition to their previous obstruction tactics, this made it clear that the committee was going to be bogged down with unnecessary delays and that it would take not months but years, at that pace, to see the bill reported back to the House.

In fact, the NDP member for New Westminster—Burnaby asked twice for unanimous consent to add 20 hours to the clause-by-clause study of the bill and was twice denied by the Conservative Party. I did the calculation. We are meeting for three hours at the public safety committee tomorrow. In this motion, we are seeking eight and a half hours for two days, which is the equivalent of the committee meeting until June 15 if we were to hold regular meetings.

Non-partisan government officials received death threats due to their appearance at committee as they provided technical advice on the bill, which underscores why it is critical to complete clause-by-clause promptly.

That is why this motion is important today. When I talk about death threats and intimidation, that is something I have been subject to from the gun lobby since 2019, when I first spoke out during the debate on Bill C-71. I have received threats and intimidation, and these are a lot more than “mean tweets”, as the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights calls them. Twice my riding was targeted by the gun lobby, when it visited my riding in 2019 and 2021, and twice the constituents of Oakville North—Burlington have stood up for gun control and the work that we are doing in this House and sent me back to Ottawa in spite of the intimidation tactics that the gun lobby has tried to use against me.

Working in this place as an MP is a privilege I do not take lightly. I have had the opportunity to work on many issues since I was elected, and one that I am most proud of is the actions our government has taken to prevent gun violence. I was elected to this place for the first time in 2015. When one is elected as an MP, a number of things happen very quickly. One learns about the functioning of the House, as one of 338 Canadians who have the privilege to take a seat at the centre of democracy. I was not expecting to be placed on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but I am grateful every day that this is where the whip chose to put me. I have worked hard to learn the file and advocate on difficult subjects, knowing that the issues the public safety committee deals with are ones that fundamentally shape our country, and that our work on it is fundamentally about building a better, safer and fairer Canada: questions surrounding systemic racism and the oversight of law enforcement; how to build a corrections system that upholds human rights and prioritizes rehabilitation; implementing needed safeguards to protect our national security from hostile foreign actors; and, yes, gun control.

Today, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security since 2016, I would like to share the context of where we were, where we are now, where we can go with the passage of Bill C-21, and why it is important to expand the scope of the bill and pass it in a timely matter.

In 2019, Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, received royal assent. Through Bill C-71, our government introduced mandatory lifetime background checks for anyone who applies for a licence to purchase and own firearms, increasing the previous regime from a five-year background check. It also updated the Firearms Act to the modern age by requiring the chief firearms officer to look at a firearms licence applicant's online behaviour for signs of violence when making a determination on whether an individual is eligible to hold a licence. The legislation also required people in businesses to have proof that they are selling non-restricted firearms only to those who are lawfully licensed to possess one. It ensured that when a court issues a prohibition against a person from owning a firearm, the weapon is forfeited to the Crown, instead of giving an individual the ability to give the firearms to a friend or family member. This ensures that those who should not have access to firearms do not.

These measures improved public safety and ensured that those who enjoy the privilege of firearm ownership meet the test of a rigorous licensing regime. At the time, the Conservatives delayed the bill at committee and eventually voted against it in the House.

While many refuse to talk about it, 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.

In speaking with groups like the Lethbridge YWCA, they have told me that every single woman who came to their shelter had been threatened by a partner with a firearm. These are among the nearly 2,500 women victimized in this way over the past five years. Intimate partner violence accounts for nearly 30% of all police-reported violent crime in Canada. That number has risen during the pandemic. In my riding and across the country, local organizations like Halton Women's Place are helping shine a brighter light on the dangers of gun violence.

Over the last eight years, we as a country have also become more aware of the role that coercive control plays in abusive relationships. When we add firearms to the mix, it is a recipe for continued physical, emotional and psychological abuse. In fact, coercive control, when a man uses a gun to control women without ever pulling the trigger, is real and happening right now.

An Oakville resident sent me an email 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, and will continue to advocate, for women, and through Bill C-21, we would be taking additional steps to support survivors of intimate partner violence who have been threatened with or on the receiving end of violence with a firearm.

Bill C-21 would introduce new red and yellow flag laws, allowing courts to remove guns from and suspend the licence of people who pose a danger to themselves or others and would ensure that those individuals subject to a protection order have their firearms licence revoked. Bill C-21 would mark an important next step in removing guns from the hands of abusive partners.

In addition to the creation of these new red flag provisions, Public Safety Canada will establish a program to help raise awareness among victims about how to use the newly proposed provisions and protections. A guide about how to submit an application to the courts and the protections available could be developed, and the program could fund services to support individuals' applications throughout the court process. It would support vulnerable and marginalized groups, including women, people with mental health issues, indigenous groups and other racialized communities, to make certain that the red flag laws would be accessible to all, particularly those who may need it most.

The government will make available $5 million through a contribution program to ensure support and equitable access.

Enhanced licensing and the creation of additional tools for survivors of intimate partner violence is just one way our government would implement stringent gun control that prioritizes public safety, while still respecting those who own and use firearms.

I would like to take a moment to take us back to April 2020 and the tragedy that unfolded in Portapique, Nova Scotia, where 22 innocent lives were lost over the course of a weekend rampage. We were all shocked and heartbroken. As we learned the identities of the victims of these terrible crimes, we were reminded of the tragic impact that gun violence could have on all of our communities, urban and rural, from coast to coast to coast. Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbours were taken from us in a terrible violent way, and far too soon.

Gun violence is not a new thing in our society, but it is made all the more deadly with the proliferation of firearms that are more powerful than ever before. Assault-style firearms, those that were not designed for hunting or sport shooting, have become more and more prevalent in our Canadian retail market. For as long as these guns have existed, they have been capable of inflicting tremendous damage when they fall into the wrong hands.

For decades, chiefs of police, advocacy groups, grieving families and everyday Canadians have called for a ban on these types of firearms, guns that were designed to kill people, intended in their purpose to kill people in the fastest time, and have been used in Canada to kill innocent people.

Canadians have been calling upon successive governments for reform, for stronger gun control. 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 retired U.S. Major General Paul Eaton has said, “For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war.” These weapons were designed for the battlefield and have no place on Canadian streets.

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 would ever be able to make it into the Canadian market. It 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.”

Dr. Najma Ahmed said, “As a trauma surgeon I can say there is no greater damage done to the human body than that from semi-automatic assault weapons. I invite any Member of Parliament who denies this reality to join me in the operating room.”

This scoping motion before us today would ensure that this technical definition could be included in Bill C-21.

That brings us to where we are today. Bill C-21 puts forward some of the strongest gun control measures in over 40 years. These new measures include implementing a national freeze on hand guns to prevent individuals from bringing newly acquired hand guns into Canada and from buying, selling and transferring hand guns within the country, a freeze which through regulations has been in effect since October 2022; taking away the firearms licenses of those involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment, such as stalking; and fighting gun smuggling and trafficking by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools for law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes and strengthening border security measures.

Over 75% of firearm deaths in our country are by suicide, and there are provisions in the bill to help medical professionals and others ensure that firearms do not remain in the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others.

The new amendments that are outlined in the scoping motion before us include tackling ghost guns, guns that are privately manufactured, or 3-D printed. This is probably one of the most important things we can do for law enforcement in Bill C-21 to support them with the emerging prevalence of ghost guns.

Members of the public safety committee visited the RCMP gun vault and were able to see how quick and easy it was for criminals to 3-D print firearms illegally. Police services across the country have told me how worried they are about ghost guns infiltrating our communities.

Investigators like Michael Rowe of the Vancouver Police Department, who appeared at our committee during our study on guns and gangs, emphasized the need to create legislative solutions to address this gap so police would have the tools to apprehend those creating these ghost guns.

During his appearance at committee, Inspector Rowe said:

...one of the trends we're seeing out here in Vancouver right now is the use of privately made firearms or “ghost guns”. During the gang conflict, we're seeing more ghost guns, specifically in the hands of people who are involved in active murder conspiracies or people who are believed to be working as hired contract killers. Ghost guns can be 3-D printed or modified from what's called a Polymer80 handgun...

Modern 3-D printing materials can produce a durable firearm, capable of shooting hundreds of rounds without a failure. For example, one of my teams recently completed an investigation in which we executed search warrants on a residential home. Inside this home, we located a sophisticated firearms manufacturing operation capable of producing 3-D printed firearms. They had firearm suppressors and they were completing airsoft conversions—converting airsoft pistols into fully functioning firearms.

The amendments before us in Bill C-21 are in direct response to Inspector Rowe's ask, which was:

...I'd respectfully like to submit that a potential solution would be to bring in legislative remedies to regulate the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. This type of legislation would give us, the police, the necessary tools to be able to seize these items, get active enforcement action and more effectively target the manufacturing of privately made firearms.

Our proposed amendments to Bill C-21 would do just that.

Police services across the country are sounding the alarm on this problem, and the amendments we are introducing to address ghost guns is another reason Bill C-21 is such an essential piece of legislation that would increase our public safety.

I would like to share the words of Noor Samiei. Noor was there that night at the Danforth shooting. She lost of best friend, Reese Fallon. Noor, Reese and their friends had graduated high school and were out to celebrate Noor's birthday with friends.

Here are Noor's words:

“What started off as a night of excitement in celebrating my 18th birthday ended in sheer horror and misery. It has been almost five years since the Danforth shooting, and I still struggle to find the words to speak about what my friends and I experienced that night.”

“There will never be enough words to adequately convey how beautiful Reese was. As cliche as it sounds, she was unlike anyone I've ever met before.”

“Another word for friendship is love. Friendship is one of the sweetest and most purest forms of love. Reese was love personified. She radiated so much light and shined so bright in any room she stepped foot in. She had a love so strong that nothing or no one could take that away.”

“While some may argue we were in the wrong place at the wrong time, it does not take away from the fact that it was a legally imported handgun that was later stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan. That's why legislation is vital and crucial.”

Canadians are calling on us to take action.

Bill C-21 would save lives, because the status quo is not good enough for Canadians. The status quo led to people like Reese not being here today. The status quo led to the slaughter of women at Polytechnique, the shooting rampage in Nova Scotia, the devastating taking of life at Dawson College and the mosque in Quebec City. The status quo has led to firearms deaths from coast to coast to coast.

In my religion, we are taught that the gift of grace has been given to us by God so that we may give it to others, even if we do not think they deserve it.

We do not deserve Noor's grace, but we are given it anyway.

Let us do something with that gift. Let us pass this motion before us, so we can efficiently deal with Bill C-21 in committee and the House and save lives.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would also like to acknowledge the impact colonization has had on indigenous peoples, with overincarceration and overrepresentation in the foster care system, and the impact it has had on missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

I am pleased to begin debate today on the motion before the House and speak about the importance not only of this motion but of passing Bill C-21 in a timely manner.

Last week, we introduced a number of important amendments that reflected conversations had across this country with Canadians and indigenous peoples. I will acknowledge that we needed to step back and ensure that we got Bill C-21 right, and the time we took was important to do that.

We have introduced a new amendment to ensure that we do not derogate from the section 35 charter rights of indigenous peoples. We have introduced a technical definition to prohibit firearms that inflict the most casualties in the least amount of time, while respecting hunters, as well as a suite of measures to address the rise of ghost guns.

It has been clear since the bill was first introduced that the Conservative Party had no interest—

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for ensuring that the debate stays relevant.

Certainly the amount of money the Liberal government is spending is critical to every bill, so thank you, Madam Speaker, for overseeing the discussion as I continue my interaction here today.

As I was saying, the finance minister indicated that she would use fiscal restraint. I do not believe she did so. If I could go even further back to when Bill S-6 was first being discussed, which was last spring before we broke for the summer recess, it was at that time and even into the fall that the finance minister indicated she was going to implement an idea that our leader has committed to: the “pay as you go” system. She said she would have fiscal restraint, but I do not believe she has that. Last year, at the end of the spring session, Bill S-6 was being discussed, as well as the “pay as you go” system, but both of these things did not happen.

In relation to our economy, I talked about Canadians being frustrated, defeated and exhausted. I am sure members saw the article in The Globe and Mail today indicating that this point in Canadian history is the worst time for new small business start-ups. This touches my heart very much. I know members have heard me speak before about how I come from a small business family in Calgary Midnapore. For me, growing up, small business was always front of mind. This included regulations, and I believe small businesses will struggle with the changing regulations indicated in Bill S-6. Again, if we look across the different departments, we can see how this can happen. Those are a couple of points in relation to Bill S-6.

I will also point out that in Bill S-6, with the way the government legislates and operates in general, the language is consistently filled with jargon, with words and phrases that are difficult for Canadians to interpret. I started out this speech by talking about how legislation should be for Canadians. It is the common Canadian we should be legislating for. When we have phrases that are too complex for Canadians to understand, it does not help them. It does not empower them. We need to do that.

With that, I would like to take a moment to talk about the plain language law that we would implement once we are in government, again in an effort to get government working for Canadians instead of having Canadians work for the government, as we are seeing in this case. I thought that was a very important point to mention.

As shadow minister for the Treasury Board, another place where I see this take place is with the public accounts. There needs to be much revision to the public accounts and how they are presented. I do not believe Canadians understand them in the format they are in presently. I always share the story that in my home growing up, like the concept we have in our home, a budget was like this: We bring in this much money as a household, we spend this much money as a household and we save this much money as a household. I do not believe the public accounts reflect a simple concept such as this, a concept that many Canadian households and many Canadians sitting around the dinner table have to follow. Again, this is in relation to the jargon, the lack of plain language and the complexity we see in regulations and legislation from the government, which is relevant to Bill S-6.

We also talk about Bill S-6 being indicative of another concept, which is very dear to the official opposition and the heart of our leader: getting rid of the gatekeepers. That essentially means making it easier for Canadians to live, to conduct business and to have the quality of life they deserve, which the government is not delivering to them, as evidenced by some of the earlier indicators I gave.

We as the official opposition have provided some constructive ideas for getting rid of the gatekeepers.

For example, our opposition day motion that was presented yesterday talked about getting rid of the municipal gatekeepers, which, coming from Calgary, I have had an opportunity to see first-hand at Calgary City Council. Having done some advocacy work at the civic level, I can say that all governments must be working together, pulling in the same direction in an effort to provide Canadians with the best standard of living, and that includes housing.

Especially when we consider the ambitious immigration targets of the current government, we need to seriously and sincerely consider how we are going to accommodate all of these newcomers. Again, I say this as an Albertan. Alberta is a place of incredible growth and we are so happy that so many new Canadians and so many Canadians who have abided in other places are making the choice to come to Alberta, but we need to seriously consider how we are going to support our citizens.

In his opposition day motion speech yesterday, my leader talked about how we will incentivize those municipalities that make the decision to build more homes for Canadians, and we will not reward those that do not. This is an excellent example of where we have to think about the gatekeepers. Bill S-6 is just an indicator that there are so many gatekeepers across government, when we have to make these minute changes to legislation which seems applicable to ages ago, including things as simple as removing stickers from liquid vending machines. It is astounding to me that these types of things are coming to light now.

Another example I will give of the official opposition's desire to get rid of the gatekeepers is our unique idea to bring home doctors and nurses and to allow for a Blue Seal in the same way that we have the Red Seal in the trade professions. That is wonderful. It is just fantastic how we have more young people joining the trades. I am especially excited about more young women joining the trades. I am certainly glad to see some of the legislation, even if it is at a provincial level, allowing young women to feel comfortable in joining the trades. Whether it is providing safe and clean restrooms for them or whether it is providing equipment that is suitable for their size and stature, whatever that may be, that is just excellent.

Our leader and the official opposition have found that the licensing bodies create endless barriers and red tape, which again is a topic that is talked about much in Bill S-6, resulting in an unnecessary, even greater shortage of doctors and nurses. I would like to quote this sentence from my leader. He said, “The Blue Seal will mean that it won’t matter where someone comes from, it matters what they can do.” That is just fantastic. If these doctors and nurses meet our Blue Seal standards, they will be able to work in our health care system. Again, this is just another example of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, looking for true efficiencies.

Bill S-6 addresses these tiny things. Really our energies could be spent on addressing much larger problems and finding efficiencies in larger problems rather than, in many cases of Bill S-6, providing opportunities for even more legislation through regulation.

I will add that legislation by regulation has not always resulted in the best outcomes for Canadians. I know that as we discuss Bill C-290 in the government operations committee right now, we are discussing, for example, the role of the public service integrity commissioner. A big discussion around these debates on Bill C-290 is really to decide how much leeway we will give the public service integrity commissioner in terms of regulation.

These are significant things that touch upon workers and will gravely determine whether a public servant decides to file a grievance and if they feel comfortable in doing so. This is something that is very important.

Another situation where we saw regulation was not sufficiently applied, for this official opposition, was the order in council regarding firearms. My goodness, that was before the pandemic, so three or four years ago now. That is a time when it most probably should have been legislation. Of course, we are going through the Bill C-21 process right now, which the Conservatives oppose. No matter what the wolf in sheep's clothing looks like, we will oppose Bill C-21. That is an example where regulation was used and perhaps should not have been. Perhaps it should have been left to legislation. This is most definitely another example.

I look through these different examples. There are other examples that my colleagues will talk about this evening, things they are very concerned about, interpretations of endangered species, for example. Again, there are more topics filled with jargon, but members will give their comments as well as to what interpretation of this legislation will mean through regulation.

It is something important to keep in mind, because, as I indicated, legislation should be made by the people for the people. This is something the official opposition, the Conservatives, are committed to. I think about how we are going to deal with the complex issues ahead of us, such as artificial intelligence, if we are talking about liquids coming out of vending machines.

Bill S-6 brings back the complexity, the jargon and the gatekeepers of this legislation. We on this side of the House want to have legislation that works for every Canadian in every single home, my home, all our homes, so let us bring it home and let us re-evaluate Bill S-6.

Public Safety

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

Madam Speaker, combatting crime is a complex issue. Rather than offering solutions, the party opposite wants to come up with catchy slogans and obstruct the policies we are putting forward.

We need to be dealing with mental health. We are providing options when it comes to housing. We are very proud of Bill C-21 and the things that are being put in there to get a handgun freeze and additional penalties on organized crime. We are taking an overall approach to dealing with crime, and I am proud of what we are doing.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I also studied the budget from a security perspective. I realize that not enough is being done, as she said, to counter gun violence.

Yes, we are working on Bill C‑21. There are good things in there. Is this going to solve all the problems? Unfortunately not and it is certainly not going to solve the problem of illicit firearms trafficking.

For months, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing that more people work together and that we create a sort of squad of New York police officers, Akwesasne Mohawk police officers, police officers from the Sûreté du Québec, police officers from Ontario and Border Services officers. They also need to be given more resources.

When these people appear in committee, they tell us that guns are crossing the border and they do not have the resources to stop it. Does the member think that the government is putting money in the right place?

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, I have 21 petitions calling on the government to repeal Bill C-21, the confiscation of private property act.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, again, we are seeing the NRA spokesperson making things up. It will be three years next month since we got rid of assault-style weapons in Canada. It is now illegal to use them, buy them or sell them. The Conservative Party of Canada wants to bring these assault rifles back, but we will not allow that to happen. That is why I am calling on everyone in the House to support Bill C‑21 when it comes back to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.

The first is to ensure that Bill C-21 does not get passed. It was the RCMP incompetence that led to punishing farmers and hunters.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to table three petitions on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

The first petition calls upon the government to repeal Bill C-21. Hunting has a long-standing history in Canada for both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, and needlessly revoking citizens' firearms erases and discounts our history and traditions.

Online Streaming Act

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have already seen examples of an overreach with this particular government on many aspects. I talked about Bill C-21 during my speech. My colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap highlighted many of the egregious events of the government in taking down or limiting the rights and freedoms of Canadians. I think that is a concern and certainly a concern that I have heard from people as well.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, there has not been any other issue that I have been seized with other than Bill C-21, which is the firearms legislation, more than this piece of legislation.

I have heard from more people who are opposed to this piece of legislation, because of the impact it would have on user-generated content. I have listened to the voices of those people I represent. I have heard, at committee, the testimony of people. I read many of their comments about their concern about this piece of legislation. The Senate has a concern. The only sides that are not concerned about this are the Liberal and NDP side, and to some degree the Bloc. It is understandable why the Bloc is in support of this piece of legislation, but the NDP and the Liberals are not doing what they need to do, and that is to listen to those people who have expressed concerns.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

Democracy does, indeed, die at night. We are sitting here dealing with amendments from the Senate on a deeply flawed and deeply controversial piece of legislation. I have not been in the House all day, but for the last couple of hours. I have heard the debate and the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a profoundly convincing argument that he made as to why this piece of legislation should not be passed.

However, it is not just the words of the Leader of the Opposition that tell us why this piece of legislation needs to be, at a minimum, overhauled or, better yet, halted at this time. The concerns of Canadians, the concerns of digital content creators, those who understand this space, those who have looked at this piece of legislation, those who have taken the time to appear before committee to express their views and all of their concerns, including the Senate amendments, to deal with one part of this deeply flawed piece of legislation are being ignored by the government, which is certainly being aided and abetted by other opposition parties.

What I thought I would do tonight is take a different tack from where this debate has gone today. There have been, like I said, hundreds of thousands of voices. There is not one issue, perhaps other than Bill C-21, the firearms legislation that I heard more about from my constituents than Bill C-11. Like the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, I am an elected member of this place, I am the voice of the people who I represent in Barrie—Innisfil and I am going to share their voices this evening. I am going to share the voices of other eminent Canadians who have expressed a concern about this piece of legislation.

I received an email from Kim, who said, “Dear Mr. Brassard, The passing of Bill C-11 will be a sad moment in Canadian history. Please consider making sure this bill does not get passed. This kind of censorship should not come from our government or any free society.” Violet said, “Dear Sir: I want the brakes put on this Bill now! I am not a fan of this ridiculous Bill.”

Rose said, “This bill is an overreach. It needs to be scrapped. Anyone who has been following this bill understands that we do not need the government to tell us what we can read/see [online].” Peter said, “Hello John, Regarding the above, my opinion is Bill C-11 should be scrapped and the [...] government keep their hand off of our social media. I hope you are [doing your] best to keep this Bill from being passed. Hopefully the Liberals will be ousted in the next election.”

John and Corrine from Barrie said, “Trust all is going well with you and your family. We ask that you vote 'no' to Bill C-11. This will hurt and restrict healthy free speech and debate which is the democracy our nation is founded on. This is a great concern to us. As our constitutional freedoms and rights are restricted, this opens doors to tyranny and dictatorship which is dangerous to every level of our nation.”

Another says, “Good afternoon Mr. Honourable Brassard, I know you're busy so I'll be brief.” This is from Brent in Barrie. “I'm very much against Bill C-11. I don't want an unelected government official/body determining what my family can watch. Margaret Atwood is against it. The previous CRTC commissioner is against it. This bill will stifle freedom of speech and shut down contrary views under the threat of 'misinformation and/or disinformation'. Please fight for our freedom of speech.”

We have certainly heard in the arguments from the opposition, the NDP and others about this being an issue of disinformation. In fact, I would suggest the ones spreading the disinformation are those on the government side.

The other person who has been directly involved in this entire debate has been Michael Geist, who is a law professor at Ottawa University. Interestingly, I was going through some his posts earlier today and he has been watching the debate intently in this House of Commons. He made a post earlier that said, “Bill C-11 is not China, Russia or Nazi Germany. As I’ve stated many times, it does not limit the ability....[of] implications for freedom of expression but it does [not] turn Canada into China.”

Firearms

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition from members of my community in Kelowna—Lake Country and the surrounding area. To summarize, the petitioners are calling on the government to stop targeting law-abiding hunters, sports shooters and farmers with gun legislation; to revise Bill C-21 so that it would effectively address the illegal use of firearms by criminals, while respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens; and last, to focus law-enforcement resources on gangs, drug traffickers, illegal gun traffickers and those who purchase firearms illegally.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, any kind of spike in violence, like the one on the TTC, is concerning to all of us. That is why we work with municipalities, like the City of Toronto and the City of Vancouver, to invest in the root causes of crime. That is why we are making investments in mental health.

We know that we need to be investing in the root causes, but we cannot ignore the impact that guns have on crime. That is why we will proudly take action, as we are with Bill C-21.

Justice

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, amidst all this tragedy, it is interesting to see the lengths to which the Conservative leader will go to avoid talking about his desire to weaken gun control in this country and bring assault weapons back into the communities where they were banned over the past couple of years by the government.

We have put a freeze on handguns in the market across the country. We are strengthening gun control, and every step of the way, the Conservative Party stands against it.

That is why I am asking Conservatives, with their concerns about public safety right now: Will they step up and accelerate the passage of Bill C-21 when it comes back to the House for third reading?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work on bail reform, including working with the provinces to ensure that we have a fair, responsible system that keeps Canadians safe right across the country.

If the member opposite were really serious about moving forward on keeping communities safe, he would back our upcoming Bill C-21 at third reading to make sure that we are keeping assault weapons out of the hands of people across the country, strengthening gun control to freeze handguns and continuing to move forward.

Instead of being in the pockets of the NRA, we are focused on Canadians.

Online Streaming Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I caught your eye so I can speak to this piece of legislation. I know I started speaking on it, but I guess the government made a mistake in its original motion. I was so keen to make sure I was here to add my voice and the voices of my constituents on this.

Years ago, when this bill was known as Bill C-10, which then got converted to Bill C-11, I remember standing at a Calgary Stampede pancake breakfast in my riding in the community of Auburn Bay. The hosts served two to three thousand people that day. I stood at the front of the line, and before people got their pancakes, they had to interact with me.

I had a great many constituents tell me the number one issue they wanted to talk to me about was Bill C-11. I was floored that some of them knew the number for a piece of legislation. A lot of young people wanted to talk about it. What they knew was that Bill C-11 was coming through and would have an impact on free speech, and they did not like it. I asked them what they knew, and we had an exchange about it.

The majority of emails I get are in opposition to Bill C-11 and also in opposition to Bill C-21. I have had a handful, which I could literally count on one hand, of people who have had positive things to say about Bill C-11.

People are extremely upset with the government over the Senate amendments and which of the amendments it has chosen to proceed with and which it has not. One of the Senate amendments it rejected would have protected user-uploaded content.

As we know, with most user-uploaded content, there is a possibility for someone to make revenue from it when they have a channel. All of it is captured by these amendments that the government would be accepting in Bill C-11. Bill C-11 is still a deeply flawed piece of legislation.

Before I continue, I want to say that I am splitting my time with the member for Lakeland, who I am sure will do a terrific job speaking on behalf of her constituents as well.

I want to go through the legislation, specifically section 7, which I have the most concerns with.

In my home, my kids go on YouTube and streaming services exclusively. We do not have cable. There is no over-the-air TV like back in my day. When I say “back in my day”, I still remember when there were black and white channels.

In Communist Poland, there were only two channels we could get. They were both in black and white. The joke always was that the regime had set up a second channel to prove to people the first one was not that bad. I do not remember it, but the first time I got to watch TV in colour was when I came to Canada in 1985. It was a nice thing to see that colour TV was something we could get.

My kids do not have that experience at all. They go onto YouTube and I go onto YouTube as well. I am going to mention two particular channels I love, because they are by Canadian content creators who would be impacted by Bill C-11.

The first one is an Ontario channel called TheStraightPipes. It is two guys from Ontario who review cars. They just get vehicles and review them. They would have to go to the CRTC to get a licence that says the videos they post are Canadian content.

They are from Canada. They are Canadian content creators. Even when they travel to America, I still think of their videos as Canadian content. Would they be eligible for a licence for their Canadian and international audience to be able to look at their videos if they go to America and do them?

The second one I want to mention is my favourite, and I mentioned it earlier in the previous stage of debate on Bill C-11 It is Leroy and Leroy. If people are not on Instagram checking out these guys from Saskatchewan, they are missing out.

Leroy and Leroy is the funniest comedy channel about funny street signs all over Canada. I will always remember the one video they uploaded of a “no parking” sign on a straight road somewhere in Saskatchewan. I know it is really difficult to figure out one straight road from another in Saskatchewan. It is a rural road, there is a “no parking” sign and there is just nothing there that someone would be concerned about vehicles blocking.

I wonder whether they would have to keep reapplying to the CRTC as Canadian content creators. Are they Canadian enough? When they travel outside of Canada to do their comedy routine, would they be Canadian enough?

I have a Yiddish proverb. I always have a Yiddish proverb. I am going to butcher the pronunciation of it.

[Member spoke in Yiddish]

[English]

It means, “Truth has all the finest qualities, but it is shy.” I am glad we are having this debate this evening, because it is an opportunity for the shyness to come out and the truth to come out.

Many members on the opposite side do not like the fact that we call this a censorship bill. We say the CRTC is going to be able to control what people see and hear online, but that is what many of the witnesses have been saying.

Countless witnesses, professors and academics, people who have specialized in writing, including a constitutional lawyer who used to work for our justice department, have expressed concern over the content of the bill and how the bill is written. When there is a disagreement between experts and the common, everyday people who write to my inbox telling me they are upset with the contents of the bill, I am going to trust my constituents, the real experts when it comes to legislation before the House. They are the ones I represent here. They are the ones who are going to have to live with the decisions we are making and the types of legislation we are going to pass.

I am very concerned with section 7. It reads, “For greater certainty, an order may be made under subsection (1) with respect to orders made under subsection 9.1(1) or 11.1(2) or regulations made under subsection 10(1) or 11.1(1).”

We write these laws in this manner. I am not burdened with a legal education, thankfully, but I did go back to the Broadcasting Act to see under which sections the government would be able to direct things. This one would allow cabinet to issue, under the heading “Policy directions”, any of the objectives of the broadcasting policies set out in a different subsection, or any of the objectives of the regulatory policies set out in a different section. It starts by saying, “the Governor in Council may...issue to the Commission directions of general application on broad policy matters with respect to”, and then it goes into detail.

The next section I will talk about is licencing. Everything to do with licencing would be impacted as well, because the government would be able to direct the CRTC through a policy directive and tell it what to do. That is all in section 7. It goes on to talk about regulations generally, and we find that in many pieces of legislation.

For those constituents who are perhaps watching this and will use this as an explanation when I go through this, it goes from literally 10(1) all the way down from (a) to (k), and the government covers everything down to what respects the audit or examination of the records of licensees.

What does that mean? Is it that, if Leroy and Leroy gets a licence with the CRTC to prove its creators create Canadian content, the creators can be audited, such as with respect to how many videos they did in Canada versus not in Canada? If TheStraightPipes brings in an American vehicle, or a vehicle perhaps manufactured elsewhere, are the creators going to be audited on that?

The bill talks about distribution, mediation rules and respecting the carriage of any foreign or other programming services by distribution undertakings. What happens if TheStraightPipes decides to do a joint episode with an American channel? Does it need a special licence, a different licence, and have to pay a fee? Is it Canadian content enough?

All these broadcasting rules are being brought into the age of YouTube, and they do not really apply here where the cost of production is so low and so close to people. However, in the bill, there are things about advertising, Canadian programming and what constitutes Canadian programming, which is where this Canadian content comes in.

Again, there are a schedule of fees, performing of the licence and the undertakings, which are all being covered, and it starts with the policy directives that can be set by the Government of Canada. A lot of different groups have expressed concerns about it. Like I said, it is probably the number one issue emailed to me or in the phone calls I get in the office.

I talked about the Calgary Stampede pancake breakfast outside the Auburn Bay A&W, which was hosting it. The gentleman who runs it, Balwant, is a great community activist. He is always helping different charitable groups and supporting them.

There are a lot of groups and individuals who think this is bad legislation: Digital First Canada; OpenMedia; J.J. McCullough, who is an independent journalist but has his own YouTube channel as well; Justin Tomchuk, who is an independent filmmaker; and the Digital Media Association. The list goes on and on.

This piece of legislation is bad. It is about censorship, or it would give the opportunity for it, and if the government really meant for it not to be not to be known by that, it would have abandoned this piece of legislation. It would have gone back to the drafting process and drafted a better bill.

This entire situation could have been avoided. Motions were tabled that actually did not do what they were supposed to do, and then the government came back and tabled a different motion because it is just trying to ram the bill through the process, and that has not worked out for the government. I think there are way more Canadians who know about Bill C-11 and about the CRTC than ever before, and the vast majority of them in my riding are opposed to Bill C-11.

I am going to vote against Bill C-11. I will continue to advocate against it, because that is what my constituents want me to do. Hopefully, through this intervention here in the House of Commons, I have been able to demonstrate that the legislation, particularly section 7, and its amendments to the Broadcasting Act are completely on the wrong track. The government needs to kill Bill C-11.

Telecommunications Act

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and join the debate this morning in the House of Commons. I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Bill C-26 is a bill that addresses an important and growing topic. Cybersecurity is very important, very timely. I am glad that, in calling this bill today, the government sees this as a priority. I struggle with trying to figure out the priorities of the government from time to time. There were other bills it had declared as absolute must-pass bills before Christmas that it is not calling. However, it is good to be talking about this instead of Bill C-21, Bill C-11 or some of the other bills that the Liberals have lots of problems with on their own benches.

Cybersecurity is something that affects all Canadians. It is, no doubt, an exceptionally important issue that the government needs to address. Cybersecurity, as the previous speaker said, is national security. It is critical to the safety and security of all of our infrastructure. It underpins every aspect of our lives. We have seen how infrastructure can be vulnerable to cyber-attacks. Throughout the world, we have seen how energy infrastructure is vulnerable, like cyber-attacks that affect the ability to operate pipelines. We have seen how cyber-attacks can jeopardize the functioning of an electrical grid.

At the local level, we have experienced how weather events that bring down power infrastructure can devastate a community and can actually endanger people's health and safety. One can only imagine what a nationwide or pervasive cyber-attack that managed to cripple a national electrical grid would do to people's ability to live their lives in safety and comfort.

Cyberwarfare is emerging as a critical component of every country's national defence system, both offensively and defensively. The battlefield success of any military force has always depended on communication. We know now just how dependent military forces are on the security of their cyber-communication. We see this unfolding in Ukraine, resulting from the horrific, criminal invasion of that country by Putin. We see the vital role that communication plays with respect to the ability of a country to defend itself from a foreign adversary, in terms of cybersecurity.

I might point out that there is a study on this going on at the national defence committee. We have heard expert testimony about how important cybersecurity is to the Canadian Armed Forces. We look forward to getting that report eventually put together and tabled, with recommendations to the government here in the House of Commons in Canada.

We know that critical sectors of the Canadian economy and our public services are highly vulnerable to cyber-attack. Organized crime and foreign governments do target information contained within health care systems and within our financial system. The potential for a ransom attack, large and small, is a threat to Canadians. Imagine a hostile regime or a criminal enterprise hacking a public health care system and holding an entire province or an entire country hostage with the threat to destroy or leak or hopelessly corrupt the health data of millions of citizens. Sadly, criminal organizations and hostile governments seek to do this and are busy creating the technology to enable them to do exactly this.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conducted three different studies while I was chair of that committee that were tied to cybersecurity in various ways. We talked about and learned about the important ways in which cybersecurity and privacy protection intersect and sometimes conflict. We saw how this government contracted with the company Clearview AI, a company whose business is to scrape billions of images from the Internet, identify these images and sell the identified images back to governments and, in the case of Canada, to the RCMP.

We heard chilling testimony at that committee about the capabilities of sophisticated investigative tools, spyware, used by hostile regimes and by organized crime but also by our own government, which used sophisticated investigative tools to access Canadians' cellphones without their knowledge or consent. In Canada, this was limited. It was surprising to learn that this happened, but it happened under judicial warrant and in limited situations by the RCMP. However, the RCMP did not notify or consult the Privacy Commissioner, which is required under Treasury Board rules. This conflict between protecting Canadians by enforcing our laws and protecting Canadians' privacy is difficult for governments, and when government institutions like the RCMP disregard Treasury Board edicts or ignore the Privacy Commissioner or the Privacy Act, especially when they set aside or ignore a ruling from the Privacy Commissioner, it is quite concerning.

This bill is important. It is worthy of support, unlike the government's somewhat related bill, Bill C-27, the so-called digital charter. However, this bill, make no mistake, has significant new powers for the government. It amends the Telecommunications Act to give extraordinary powers to the minister over industry. It is part of a pattern we are seeing with this government, where it introduces bills that grant significant powers to the minister and to the bureaucrats who will ultimately create regulations.

Parliament is really not going to see this fleshed out unless there is significant work done at committee to improve transparency around this bill and to add more clarity around what this bill would actually do and how these powers will be granted. There have been many concerns raised in the business community about how this bill may chase investment, jobs and capital from Canada. The prospect of extraordinary fines, without this bill being fleshed out very well, creates enormous liability for companies, which may choose not to invest in Canada, not fully understanding the ramifications of this bill.

There is always the capture. We have seen this time and time again with the government. It seems to write up a bill for maybe three or four big companies or industries, only a small number of players in Canada, and yet the bill will capture other enterprises, small businesses that do not have armies of lobbyists to engage the government and get regulations that will give them loopholes, or lawyers to litigate a conflict that may arise as a result of it. I am always concerned about the small businesses and the way they may be captured, either deliberately or not, by a bill like this.

I will conclude by saying that I support the objective. I agree with the concern that the bill tries to address. I am very concerned about a number of areas that are ambiguous within the bill. I hope that it is studied vigorously at committee and that strong recommendations are brought back from committee and incorporated into whatever the bill might finally look like when it comes back for third reading.

Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, it is really important tonight of all nights that we discuss this issue. In a world of disinformation and political interference from foreign actors, democracy is in a fragile condition these days. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to reassure the public and give them reason to believe that the public service has integrity. This is the reason that New Democrats came forward tonight to bring this motion, and we can see how excited the Conservatives are that, once again, they are able to respond to the NDP's lead on this. This is why, on a number of issues, we have used our position in Parliament not to burn the House to the ground but to try and find solutions.

When the Liberals overreached on Bill C-21, the gun bill, the Conservatives just loved it. They were going to raise money off of it. We were like, “No, we are going to find a solution so that farmers and hunters are not targeted.” We pushed relentlessly and negotiated. That is what we do in Parliament.

It is the same for the issue of getting Ms. Katie Telford to come before committee. The Conservatives were just using their tactics of character assassination and smear, but we said no to the Liberals. We said that we have to find a way to start getting answers.

The NDP was the first party, with our leader, to call for a public inquiry. Tonight, we are the ones leading this discussion. We need this because we are in a situation where we have just gotten allegations, which I think are explosive, that a sitting member of Parliament may have advised a senior Chinese official over the illegal detention, the hostage-taking, of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, whom we know as “the two Michaels”.

The hostage-taking of those two men was a real line that was crossed in this new century in terms of the breakdown of international order and international law. It was incumbent upon all of us, regardless of party, to put the interests of those men and their families first.

I know the member who has been accused. I have sat with him on committee. I am not here to say whether those allegations are true. However, I am saying they are so explosive that the Prime Minister must respond. One of the ways he can respond now is by following the New Democrat call for a public inquiry to restore confidence.

I am not confident that addressing this in just a parliamentary committee is enough. We are also dealing with serious state secret issues. A lot of this comes through what CSIS is going to tell us. Quite frankly, I do not trust the Conservative leader with this kind of information anymore because I see the tactics that he has brought forward.

I blame the Prime Minister for delaying, obfuscating, not addressing the seriousness of this issue and undermining public confidence. However, I think it is equally dangerous to use the tactic of character assassination and smear, as well as trashing anyone who stands in the way of the Conservative agenda on this. Knowing what they are doing, I would certainly never be comfortable knowing that state secrets could be brought to a committee. They can say what they want about David Johnston or the decision of the Prime Minister, in terms of whether it was right or wrong to appoint a special rapporteur, but shame on Conservatives who trashed the reputation of a former governor general. This is a man who was appointed by Stephen Harper and who serves his country with dignity. He deserves better than this kind of smear.

I do not think I will ever be invited to a Trudeau Foundation dinner; I would be very surprised if I were. However, when we have institutions that actually serve the public, it is not acceptable to decide to try and smear them as though they are some kind of Chinese, communist-run foundation of friends and pals. That is ignorant. I disagree with the Prime Minister on most things, but I would never stoop so low as to say that he is some kind of paid stooge for a foreign government. However, that is the language that comes from the leader of the Conservative Party, and that is dangerous because it undermines confidence.

The first time I was called a “traitor”, I thought it was a joke because I serve my country with dignity. However, I realized language like calling people “traitors” and “enemies” is now part of the Conservatives' discourse. This is why we have death threats in this country. There are disinformation reports from the World Economic Forum. We have to rise above this.

There was a time when the Parliament of Canada would have been shocked and appalled that any member would have partied with an extreme right neo-Nazi German extremist, like Christine Anderson. However, she is a folk hero to many on that side. There was a time when any Conservative leader who knew that their members were cavorting with extreme-right German extremist groups would have drawn a line, but that does not happen anymore.

We are in a situation where we are moving further away from where we need to be as an institution that reassures faith in the public that they can trust not only that our elections are completely protected and the rights of citizens are protected, but also that public institutions serve the public interest and that the people we elect to serve are doing it with a belief that public service is a public good. We have to get back there.

When we look at the situation before us, with the allegations of foreign interference, we know that there were serious questions during the convoy about Russian disinformation, proxy sites and the use of RT. It favoured certain political interests in this country, because it was undermining the present government, but there were serious questions about Russian disinformation in the convoy scandal.

We need to make sure that we have the tools to examine if this is interfering with how our democracy operates. The situation of allegations of potential interference by Chinese state actors is also concerning for another profound reason. We see a rise of anti-Asian hate and anti-Asian violence in this country. We need to say very clearly, as parliamentarians, that we are not exploiting this situation for our own personal and political gain. We are deeply concerned, just as people in the Chinese community are concerned and just as people in the Iranian community or any other community would be concerned, about any potential foreign actors. This is why the Prime Minister needs to reassure the public that he understands this.

I respect David Johnston. I do not know if we needed him as a special rapporteur. The allegations that have come out tonight are very serious, and I think the Prime Minister must respond to those allegations. I think it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to say that we have to take this out of the realm of the partisan monkey house, which this place has sometimes descended to in the last few days, and to put it in the hands of an independent inquiry that has the power to compel testimony, the power to gather documents and—

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to represent the interests of the good people of Regina—Qu'Appelle and represent my caucus as the opposition House leader.

We need to frame what is going on here because what we saw over the last few weeks was a despicable display at committee, a mockery of the parliamentary process. We found out that the Prime Minister has known for years about allegations of foreign interference from the Communist regime in Beijing, specifically helping the Liberal Party. Chinese representatives of that Communist regime here in Canada said they preferred a Liberal government, and there are reports coming from The Globe and Mail, citing CSIS reports and national security committee reports, indicating that there is a large “clandestine network” of funding of candidates that is coming from the Communist regime in Beijing. Conservatives have been trying to shine a light on this at committee. We have all seen the lengths that the Liberals have gone to.

Today is what is called an opposition day. Today is the supply day when opposition parties are allowed to introduce a topic and have a debate on something. Normally the government gets to set the calendar. This is its right, as it brings forward legislation, but a certain number of days throughout the year are allocated to each opposition party. For today, the Conservatives put forward a motion to call on the government to abandon its plan to increase taxes on beer, wine and spirits. That is what we are supposed to be debating right now.

On Monday, we had a fulsome debate on this whole issue of foreign interference, and I should point out that Conservatives, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, indicated to the NDP that we are totally fine with expanding the scope of the investigation. We believe that if there are allegations of foreign interference coming from any country, they should be investigated. We were willing to work with the New Democrats on that. We were hoping that they would vote in favour of our motion on Monday calling on the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify at committee. The problem was that they did not let us know. They kept ragging the puck. It was a very simple question. It was the exact same motion that we had proposed at committee. Even the NDP House leader had indicated his support at committee.

It kind of reminds me of something that happened a little while ago. I was in the chamber and I saw the NDP House leader get up and try to indicate that the NDP opposed certain amendments at committee when it was dealing with Bill C-21. Of course, Bill C-21 is the piece of legislation that would massively expand the power of the government to take away lawful firearms from Canadians. I am not trying to mix topics too much, but the reason I am talking about this is that Conservatives recognized instantly what was going on. We saw it at committee. We said it was going to make unlawful so many firearms that hunters and indigenous communities use every season for their long-held Canadian heritage and history of using firearms legally.

What happened was that Conservatives at the committee saw that not only were these bad policy amendments, but they were also out of order, beyond the scope of the bill itself, so at the committee, almost immediately, we asked the chair to rule those amendments out of order. The chair said no. The Liberal chair said that the amendments were in order.

Why do I bring this up? At committee, the Conservatives challenged the chair. We asked our colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP to please support us on this as the amendments were out of order. The NDP voted no. The NDP voted to keep those amendments in Bill C-21, yet the NDP House leader came to this chamber and asked the Speaker to do what his team actually voted against at committee. He tried to take credit, saying they were bad. It was only after their MPs heard from their constituents, who told them how terrible it was. This is exactly what we are facing here today.

We have tried to give the opportunity to the NDP members multiple times to hold this government to account and yet, time and time again, they are showing Canadians that they would rather prop up Liberal corruption and help keep the truth covered, instead of shining a light. It is very disappointing. It is very disappointing that we see the NDP here on an opposition day move this motion. They are trying to come up with this phony story.

Conservatives want a public inquiry. We have called for it. We were trying to get this report back in the House; we could have dealt with this last week. They are the ones playing procedural games and we are not going to let them get away with it. We are going to highlight to Canadians the hypocrisy that the NDP has been showing.

I just want to indicate that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

In closing, I want to make a couple of points about this. I hear from colleagues across the way who are throwing all kinds of baseless allegations that are just not backed up by facts. Conservatives have been calling for a public inquiry. The first time the Leader of the Opposition raised this issue in the House, the Prime Minister said that he did not know anything about it, so we started to press. We started to call for this. We started to call for a full, independent public inquiry. What did the government do? It appointed a special rapporteur.

I understand. I understand the hon. government House leader and I am hoping to have a discussion with him in a few moments, but it is important to set the stage for it.

I will wrap it up with this. It is impossible to restore the confidence that has been shaken by the Prime Minister's inaction on this file without a public inquiry, not a special rapporteur with close family ties to the Prime Minister, not someone on the Trudeau Foundation board. We support the call for a full public inquiry and we are just disappointed that it took so long to drag the NDP kicking and screaming to ensure that the Prime Minister's chief of staff testifies at committee.

Online Streaming Act

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, normally, there would not be much debate in the House when we talk about making updates to the Broadcasting Act, which came into effect in 1991. At face value, most Canadians would say that a lot has changed since then. A little thing called the Internet came along, and most would agree.

I have talked about this topic in the House before and I am pretty proud of myself. I am pretty sure that I was the first MP in Canadian history to put Boyz II Men in the parliamentary record, when talking about the legislation before us, because times have changed a little bit. Back in 1991, Boyz II Men, Bryan Adams, MC Hammer and Monty Python were on the charts. I wanted to put that in the record again, and I am glad I have done that.

The goals of the Broadcasting Act have been reasonable: respecting official languages and providing an avenue for Canadian content in the traditional media at the time of TV and radio. Here is the thing I have said in the House, sadly, on many issues over and over again: Only the NDP and the Liberals, working together, can take something so mundane and so innocuous and make a disaster out of it when it comes to policy.

Here is how I know that. Outside of the Ottawa bubble, there are not too many Canadians who know what Bill C-4 or Bill S-252 or Bill C-39 is when it comes to government legislation. We know that the government is in trouble and we know it is on the wrong side of public opinion when a bill title becomes famous. In the last couple of weeks or couple of months, Bill C-21 has become synonymous with an attack on rural Canadians, indigenous communities and hunters, when the government tried to ban commonly used hunting rifles. Here we are now, with the famous term “C-11”, known by millions of Canadians across the country today as the most blatant attempt by the Liberals and the NDP, and bureaucrats in Ottawa, to have control over what Canadians see and what they search on the Internet.

If that was not convincing enough, Bill C-11 being a household name to millions of Canadians, we know we are in trouble when Conservatives and Margaret Atwood are on the same page, pushing back against the government. She is a wonderful Canadian, one of the most regarded and successful Canadian artists and content creators this country has ever seen. Canadians do not have to take my word for it or believe this side of the bench if they do not want to. Canadians will take Margaret Atwood's word on Canadian culture and content any day of the week over that of the Liberals and the NDP.

I want to give members the dictionary version of what she said. She said some pretty harsh things, calling out the government on Bill C-11. When we break it down and use the dictionary to further define what she is calling out the government for, it is creating a centralized and dictator-like system of control that requires complete subservience to the state.

This is bad legislation. They know it. It has been ping-ponged back and forth between the House of Commons and the Senate. It is back in the House of Commons, and it is going to go back to the Senate. Every time there is a committee hearing, every time there are more witnesses testifying, there are more questions than answers about what the government is doing here with this bill. From consumer groups to legal experts to content creators, many, many groups from every walk of life and every angle on this topic are calling out the government's direction and how bad and how flawed the bill is.

I am proud to stand as a Conservative to say that when we form government, we will repeal Bill C-11. We will kill Bill C-11, as simple as that.

Let us get into the weeds and talk about some of these pieces bit by bit. One of the things we hear the Liberals and the NDP say is that we need to support Canadian content more.

When I think about that, I pull up a list and say, sure, let us support Canadian content, things like Deadpool. It was filmed in Vancouver, starring Canadian actor Ryan Reynolds, with a screenplay by Canadian Paul Wernick, based on a Canadian comic book character.

We have Canadian Bacon. Who could forget that? There is John Candy, a legendary Canadian actor, in a story involving Canada.

I talked about Margaret Atwood. We have The Handmaid's Tale, based on her book. When we look at the production, the series was filmed in Mississauga, Toronto, Brantford, Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville, Cambridge.

I think of Canadian content like All or Nothing, a series on the Toronto Maple Leafs. It is a five-part series that followed the Leafs for months during the 2020-21 season. It is narrated by a Canadian, Will Arnett. It used Canadian crews.

Is this all Canadian content? No, every one of those examples I just cited does not meet the definition and criteria for Canadian content in the definitions that we have.

Bill C-11 is currently 56 pages long, and any Canadian can go online and look at it. They can hit Ctrl+F and search. Nowhere in there does it talk about modernizing and cleaning up that definition. I will argue that this is not about Canadian content, but about something else.

Every time, we put an amendment forward to clarify. If the government wants to debunk a myth and say that what we are saying is not the case, it can clarify it and put in amendments to say what it is not, to exclude certain things. The government refused to do so. It says, “Don't worry. We are not going to determine that. It's going to be the CRTC.”

This brings me to my next point, about another fundamentally flawed part of the legislation. The CRTC is an Ottawa-based acronym. Federal acronyms go left, right and centre around here. It is an agency in Ottawa, and on the Quebec side as well, in the national capital region, full of bureaucrats who, behind closed doors, would not only set the rules for what is Canadian content, but also, through the bill, be directed to start controlling the search results we have on the Internet.

Members heard that right: “behind closed doors”. We have asked repeatedly to put some sunshine, sunlight and transparency on those protocols. There are no criteria in the bill. There is no public formula. There are no clarifications or guardrails on what those protocols are, so for Canadians, when it comes to what they search and what they want to see, whether it is searching on Google, Crave, YouTube or any other platform, as a Canadian here and now, the government will control what goes up in search results and what goes down, and we would not be able to find out the algorithms and calculations it uses, because of CRTC bureaucrats doing it behind closed doors. They never have to share their reasoning, or what I call “showing their homework”. That speaks volumes.

The Prime Minister and the NDP will say not to worry because the CRTC is an arm's-length agency of the federal government. “It is independent,” they say. Let us just debunk that right now. The CRTC reports to the Liberal Minister of Canadian Heritage. Its chair and the commissioners who are working there and leading that organization are appointed directly by the Prime Minister and the Liberal cabinet.

Nobody believes it is arm's-length, and nobody believes the legislation is about Canadian artists and everyday Canadians, because if it were the right thing to do and the popular thing to do, and if there were no problems about it, the government would have made that whole process a lot more public, rather than punting it over behind closed doors.

The bill is not about sunlight. It is not about Canadian artists and content creators. I say the bill is a Trojan horse, because there are some very big cheerleaders for it. The bureaucracy at the CRTC would be exploding in size. The size of the Internet is massive. The amount of content uploaded every single day is huge. It is going to take an administrative swarm of new bureaucrats to go through, and the people who are going to hit the jackpot, the people who are doing cartwheels in downtown Ottawa, are the lobbyists who would be hired by all these groups, associations and artists to try to lobby to get them, when the CRTC goes behind closed doors, to take what is going on.

As I share my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, we will continue the commentary on this and how it works. If someone is a budding content creator in north Winnipeg, a Franco-Ontarian or an indigenous artist in northern Canada, in Nunavut, they can currently upload, and may the best content win. The cream of the crop rises. Canadians will determine what they like and what they want to watch, and that should be the most popular search result. That is the most organic way possible. Trust me, the best way is to let Canadians do their own work and let the organic way go. Good videos go to the top. We have thousands of artists who have made a living by creating content and continue to do so. We do not need to fix what is not broken.

I will wrap up by saying that Bill C-11 is bad. It is online censorship. Ottawa telling 37 million Canadians what they should watch and see is wrong. The Liberals and the NDP have had years to get this right, and now they are just being stubborn.

We oppose this bill now, and as a Conservative government, we would kill Bill C-11.

Firearms

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents.

The first is in regard to firearms and Bill C-21. Petitioners are outraged that the government would rather waste valuable time and resources on confiscating lawfully obtained firearms from citizens who have done no wrong than actually addressing rampant gun violence being committed by criminals and gangs in communities across our country. Canada has a long-standing history of hunting. For centuries, both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians have hunted for sustenance and sport.

Bill C-21 would put unfairly severe restrictions on law-abiding Canadian hunters, and it would put their traditions at risk. My constituents are calling on the government to repeal and withdraw Bill C-21.

Telecommunications Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, it took eight long years for the Liberal government to recognize that cybersecurity threats exist in this country and around the world. Congratulations to them for coming to the party a little late.

The Liberals have now presented a bill to try to address issues of cybersecurity in the country. As I said, it took them eight years to get there, but I have to say I am pleased that the Liberals have decided to finally do something. I look forward to this bill being passed so that it can be extensively studied at committee.

There are some things in this bill that are good. I know praising the Liberal government is strange territory for me, but I will say that the bill would give the government some tools to respond quickly to cyber-threats. There is currently no explicit legislative authority in the Telecommunications Act to ensure that telecom providers are suitably prepared for cyber-attacks. This is a good reason why this bill should probably move forward to committee to be studied.

The challenge I have, though, includes a whole number of things. My issue with the government is trust. While I do want this legislation to go to committee, I have extraordinary concerns about this bill. Many of these concerns have been raised by many groups across the country, and I do want to speak to some of those in the probably somewhat whimsical hope that the government will listen and take some of these amendments seriously.

There has been a very bad track record of the government responding to concerns from the opposition or from outside organizations with respect to legislation. There is a view that the Liberals are going to do what they want to do on pieces of legislation and that they really do not care what other people have to say. I am very concerned that the government is not going to listen to the very serious concerns that have been raised about this bill.

I have my own concerns when I look at how the government has behaved with respect to other pieces of legislation. We have to look at Bill C-11. There has been a multitude of organizations that have said the bill needs further amendment. Margaret Atwood has said that she has grave concerns about the legislation, that she supports the intent but has grave concerns about the implementation and how it is going to affect artists and content creators. We have had folks who compete in the YouTube sphere who have raised all kinds of concerns about Bill C-11, and the government's response has been that it does not care what they have to say, and that it is going forward with the legislation as it is.

The Senate has made a number of amendments to Bill C-11. I suspect the government's attitude is going to be the same, which is that it does not care what the amendments are and that it is going to proceed with the bill as it sees fit.

We also have only to look to Bill C-21 as well. We had the minister clearly not aware of what constituted a hunting rifle and a hunting gun. The Liberals introduced amendments at committee, and it took extraordinary push-back from Canadians from coast to coast to coast to get them to wake up and withdraw those amendments that they had put in at the last minute.

What it speaks to is that, despite having at its disposal the entire apparatus of the Canadian government, the Liberals are still unable to get legislation right. It takes an enormous amount of effort and hue and cry across the country saying that this has to stop and that this has to be changed. If there is not a massive uprising, the government tends not to listen to the legitimate concerns of other constituents or other groups when it introduces legislation.

With that context, it is why I have real concerns that the government is not going to listen to some of the serious concerns that have been raised with respect to Bill C-26. I am going to go through some of those.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has some very serious concerns. It has issued a joint letter that says that the bill is deeply problematic and needs fixing, because it risks undermining our privacy rights and the principles of accountable governance and judicial due process. This is a big bell that is going off, and I hope the government is listening. As I have said, I do not have a lot of faith, given other pieces of legislation where thoughtful amendments have been put forward and the government decided not to do anything with them.

I want to enumerate a few of the concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. On increased surveillance, it says that the bill would allow the federal government “to secretly order telecom providers” to “do anything or refrain from doing anything necessary...to secure the Canadian telecommunications system, including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption”.

That is a pretty broad power. Where is the government putting the guardrails in that would limit the effects of this or protect the privacy rights of Canadians? That is something I think is incredibly concerning.

On the termination of essential services, Bill C-26 would allow the government to bar a person or a company from being able to receive specific services and bar any company from offering these services to others by secret government order.

Where are we going to have the checks and safety checks on this? Unfortunately, I am not in a position where I think I can trust the government to do the right thing on these things. We have seen it through vaccine mandates, in the legislation on Bill C-21 and in how the Liberals are trying to push through Bill C-11 without listening to reasoned amendments. If reasonable concerns are raised about Bill C-26, I just do not have faith the Liberals are going to take those concerns seriously and make the amendments that are necessary. I really hope they do.

On undermining privacy, the bill would provide for the collection of data from designated operators, which would potentially allow the government to obtain identifiable and de-identified personal information and subsequently distribute it to domestic, and perhaps foreign, organizations. When someone takes the de-identified personal information of Canadians and does not say how they are going to deal with it or what protections they have in place to make sure it is not misused, what happens in the event that they take that information and somehow there is a government breach? Where does that information go? These are things I think we should be extraordinarily concerned about.

There was also an analysis provided with respect to this by Christopher Parsons, in a report subtitled “A Critical Analysis of Proposed Amendments in Bill C-26 to the Telecommunications Act”. Parsons raises concerns about vague language. The report notes that key terms in the bill, such as “interference”, “manipulation” and “disruption”, which trigger the government's ability to make orders binding on telecom service providers, are unidentified.

Where are the guardrails in the legislation to prevent government overreach and therefore protect Canadians? This is something that I think all Canadians should be watching and be very concerned about. They should be letting their voices be heard by the government on this.

The report talks about how the minister of industry's scope of power to make orders is also undefined. We would be giving a whole host of undefined powers to the minister and the government that would allow them to have all kinds of sensitive information. These are things that may be necessary, but I do not know. They are highly concerning to me. They should be highly concerning to Canadians, and I hope the government will hear from real experts at committee.

Let us not have a two-day committee study where we think Bill C-26 is perfect as it is and bring it back to the House of Commons, bring in time allocation or closure and pass it through. We have seen that story before, and we do not want to see it with the piece of legislation before us. My really big hope is that the government is going to take the time to really consider the seriousness and breadth of Bill C-26 and make sure we have the ways to protect Canadians.

I just want to add that the Business Council of Canada has released its own letter to the Minister of Public Safety, expressing its incredibly deep concerns with respect to the bill: there is a lack of a risk-based approach, information sharing is one-way and the legal threshold for issuing directions is too low.

There are three reports, right there, that are outlining significant concerns with Bill C-26, and I, for one, just do not believe the government is going to listen or get it right. It does not have the track record of doing so, but I am hoping it will, because cybersecurity is incredibly serious as we move toward a digital economy in so many ways. I really hope the government is going to listen to these things, take them seriously, do the hard work at committee and bring forward whatever amendments need to be brought forward, or, if the amendments are brought forward by the opposition, listen to and implement those amendments.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of trouble putting any confidence in the Liberal government. It took seven years for it to ban Huawei. It is a government that sat on its hands and did nothing about cybersecurity for the past several years. I know this is a government I cannot trust. When I look at Bill C-11, the Liberals are now trying to censor Canadians online. They are trying to control what people see online, which violates charter rights, especially when it comes down to freedom of expression, freedom of association and the ability to actually have discourse online about our political situation in Canada and around the world. When the Liberals try to put veils over certain parts of our information system, I have to be very concerned.

I look at Bill C-21 and how the Liberals have gone after responsible firearms owners like hunters, sport shooters and farmers. To me, that builds no trust in the government to get the job done.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be joining the debate today to offer some of my thoughts and perspective on Bill C-26, a much awaited bill on a cybersecurity infrastructure.

Bill C-26 is a good reminder to members that the Department of Public Safety and its subject matter is so much bigger than just firearms, because, of course, firearms and Bill C-21 have been dominating the news cycle for the last couple of months. That bill, in particular at the public safety committee, has occupied so much time and wasted so many resources. Bill C-26 is a good reminder that with cybersecurity we have so many other agencies that are dedicated to national security under the umbrella of public safety. Cybersecurity is a big subject matter. We also have Bill C-20, which is an important bill on oversight and accountability for both the CBSA and RCMP.

Today, we would not find many members in the House of Commons who are arguing against the need for better cybersecurity. All of the evidence out there points to this being a new and evolving threat. Artificial intelligence systems offer some interesting advantages, but with those advantages come threats and with those threats come actors who are determined to use them in nefarious ways that will harm and have harmed Canada's interests. We need a whole host of options to counter this threat. We need our national security agencies to take these threats with increased importance. We also need legislation to fill in the gaps and make sure that all of Canada's laws are up to date.

I have spent a lot of time on the public safety committee. We did a couple of reports that directly touched on this area. One of our first reports identified violent extremism. Our most recent study looked at the threat posed by Russia. We know that since Russia conducted its invasion of Ukraine, which has recently passed the one-year anniversary, it has also increased the threats that it offers to Canada and to like-minded countries. One of those areas is cybersecurity.

Our committee has not yet tabled its report, which should be tabled in the House of Commons soon so that members of the House and the public can not only see the results of the deliberations, but also see the important recommendations that the committee is going to make. However, we heard a lot of testimony during those committee hearings on the cyber-related threats from Russia. Many witnesses identified that those are among the most serious and relevant for Canada's public safety and national security, particularly in relation to critical infrastructure.

I want to set this table before I get into the nuts and bolts of what Bill C-26 is offering, but also set some of the problems that are in evidence with this first version of the bill.

We have to understand a few basic terms. The Government of Canada refers to critical infrastructure as the “processes, systems, facilities, technologies, networks, assets and services essential to the health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians and the effective functioning of government”, whether that is the federal government, the provincial governments or our municipal governments. Because so many of those pieces of critical infrastructure are now tied into computer systems that are vulnerable to attack, a bill like this becomes quite necessary.

I could go on and on about all of the critical systems in our modern society and the range of sectors, from our energy production to our food distribution systems to our electricity grid and transportation networks and how our ports and our banking system work. If one were to interrupt any one of those services, it could create absolute havoc within any Canadian community or countrywide.

One of the witnesses we had during our public safety meetings on the topic of the threats posed from Russia, and this was just talking about the cyber-threat more broadly, was Jennifer Quaid, Executive Director of the Canadian Cyber Threat Exchange. She reminded our committee that there are nation-states that are conducting espionage and statecraft through the Internet, but there are also criminals who are engaging in cybercrime for financial gain.

In some cases, those criminal groups and the nation-states are working together. There is evidence of this not only in Russia but in places like North Korea and China, where it is almost like the policy that was in place back in the 1700s and 1600s, where privateers would go out and do a nation-state's bidding. In this modern-day version of that policy, there are criminal organizations that are working hand in glove with some nation-states to give them some plausible deniability, but the systems they are using do pose a very real threat to Canada.

One of our key witnesses during the study was Caroline Xavier, Chief of the Communications Security Establishment. She was not able to go into much detail or specifics, given the very sensitive nature of the topic, but she was able to assure the committee that cybercrime is absolutely the most prevalent and most pervasive threat to Canadians and Canadian businesses. She observed that the state-sponsored cyber programs of China, North Korea, Iran and Russia posed the greatest strategic threat to Canada, and that foreign cyber-threat activities have included attempts to target Canadian critical infrastructure operators, as well as their operational and information technology.

Leaving aside the government, it is important for members to realize that most of Canada's critical infrastructure is, by and large, in the hands of the private sector. This is going to underline some of the important elements of Bill C-26.

We also had testimony from David Shipley, Chief Executive Officer of Beauceron Security. He was relaying the same stuff about Russian criminal organizations working in tandem with the government, and saying that criminal gangs have crippled Canadian municipalities. They have gone after health care organizations. The range of malicious cyber-activity has absolutely extended to many small and medium-sized enterprises.

When we look at the reporting requirements of Bill C-26, one of the biggest gaps that we have in our system is the fact that many businesses, private enterprises, are loath to report the fact that their systems have experienced a cyber-attack. They may be threatened to not do so. There is also a very real concern about the institutional harm that could come from the public release of said information. A large corporation that relays to its customers that it has experienced a cyber-attack may find people are loath to do business with it if they are unsure that its systems are up to par.

I also want to highlight a recent example from 2021, where the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador experienced a health records cyber-attack on October 30. The investigation revealed that over 200,000 files were taken that contained confidential patient information.

One can just imagine that in a province the size of Newfoundland and Labrador the fact that over 200,000 files were taken, that is a shocking theft of personal and confidential information. It really underlines just how important addressing this is.

I also want to touch briefly on the topic of artificial intelligence. I want to read a quote from a recent Hill Times article. This is from Jérémie Harris who is one of the co-founders of Gladstone AI, which is an artificial intelligence safety committee. He says:

But perhaps more concerning are the national security implications of these impressive capabilities. ChatGPT has been used to generate highly effective and unprecedented forms of malware, and the technology behind it can be used to power hyperscaled election interference operations and phishing attacks. These applications—and countless other, equally concerning ones also enabled by new advances in AI—would have been the stuff of science fiction just two years ago.

He goes on to say:

...ChatGPT is a harbinger of an era in which AI will be the single most important source of public safety risk facing Canada. As AI advances at a breakneck pace, the destructive footprint of malicious actors who use it will increase just as fast. Likewise, AI accidents—now widely viewed by AI safety specialists as a source of global catastrophic risk—will take more significant and exotic forms.

Something all members of the House really have to be aware of is how, just in the last two years, AI has advanced so quickly. We can think about what AI will be capable of two years or a decade from now. Just as Mr. Harris said, what it is doing right now was inconceivable just two years ago. The fact that AI is now being used to generate unique code for malware indicates there is no telling what it can be used to do and how it could be used to wreak havoc. That underlies just how important this issue is and how seriously we, as parliamentarians, have to take it as we serve our constituents and do the important work of equipping our nation with the tools it needs to keep Canadians, and the critical infrastructure they depend upon, safe.

When I was a member of the public safety committee, I had a chance to speak with Mr. Harris. I actually put a motion on notice that the committee should be undertaking a study on the range of threats posed to Canada's public safety, national security and critical infrastructure, specifically by AI systems. I hope one day the committee can take that study up, but it is a committee with a very heavy workload. It is still trying to find its way through Bill C-21. It is waiting for Bill C-20 to arrive on its door and, of course, this bill, Bill C-26, would also keep committee members quite busy.

I would like now to turn to the specifics of Bill C-26 and what it is attempting to do. It is separated into two main parts. According to the summary of the bill:

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.

There are a number of orders that the Minister of Industry could issue. For example, he or she could prohibit a TSP from using any specified product or service in its networks or facilities; direct a TSP to remove a specified product from its networks or facilities; impose conditions on a TSP’s use of any product or service; subject a TSP’s networks or facilities, as well as its procurement plans for those networks or facilities, to a specified review process. Those are just a few examples of how the minister's orders could be issued. The bill does require the Governor in Council or the Minister of Industry to publish these orders in the Canada Gazette, but there is an allowance in the bill to allow these provisions to be prohibited, so the government can prevent the disclosure of these orders within the Gazette if they feel they need to be kept secret.

Part 2 would enact a brand new statute of Canada, a critical cyber systems protection act, which would “provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety”. In schedule 1 of the government's bill there is a brief list. Vital systems and services can include telecommunication services, interprovincial or international pipelines and power line systems, and nuclear energy systems. Those are a few examples. A really important point is that the Governor in Council, through this bill, would be able to establish classes of operators and require designated operators to establish and implement cybersecurity programs.

This is where the bill would affect the private sector and make sure those cybersecurity programs are in place, especially when that private sector is involved in critical infrastructure. As a brief outline, with those cybersecurity programs, the expected outcomes would be that they could identify and manage any cyber-risk to the organization, including supply chain risks; prevent their critical cyber systems from being compromised; detect cybersecurity incidents; and limit the damage in the event a cybersecurity incident did occur.

I want to talk about concerns with the bill, because there are a lot of concerns. I have had the chance to speak with a number of organizations, but first and foremost was OpenMedia. I had a great conversation with the people there. There is a section on its website that specifically deals with Bill C-26. OpenMedia absolutely realizes that new cybersecurity protections are needed to protect Canada's infrastructure, but it believes they have to be balanced by appropriate safeguards, and this is to prevent their abuse and misuse.

We rely on these essential services, and their protection is important, but Bill C-26, as it is currently written, would give the executive branch huge sweeping powers. In my reading of the bill, there would not be enough accountability and oversight; there would not be enough review mechanisms for Parliament to check the power of the executive, and I think this is a critical point. I think, in principle, we have a good idea with the bill, but a lot of work will be needed at committee to ensure that this executive power would be checked and that it would fit within the parameters of the law. We absolutely must have that kind of parliamentary oversight.

I also know of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which said:

The problems with the Bill lie in the fact that the new and discretionary powers introduced by C-26 are largely unconstrained by safeguards to ensure those powers are used, when necessary, in ways that are proportionate, with due consideration for privacy and other rights. The lack of provisions around accountability and transparency make it all more troubling still.

I think, at this stage, we want to ensure, with the minister's powers to order or direct service providers, and the requirement to comply with these orders, that these powers are being subjected to the appropriate safeguard mechanisms. They are quite broad, as currently written.

In conclusion, I want to see a bill that protects vulnerable groups from cyber-attacks. So many Canadians rely on these critical systems, and we know so many have been targeted and are being targeted as we speak, and we know these dangers are going to multiply and get worse the longer we go on. We want to make sure they are protected, but we want to make sure that we do not have broad unchecked ministerial powers with no public oversight. That is the balance that must be achieved.

I must express, in my closing minute, my personal frustration with how the Liberals draft their bills. The idea behind Bill C-26 is a good one, but the problem with how the Liberals drafted the bill is that it would give huge sweeping amount of power to the executive branch. I just wish they would have had the foresight to understand that, of course, these provisions would be met with opposition. It seems the Liberals are putting the work on committee members to fix the bill for them, rather than having had the foresight and intuition to understand that these are problematic elements of the bill.

I think a lot more work could have been done on the government's side to have presented a better first draft. I guess we have what we have to work with, but a lot of work is going to be needed to be done at committee, and I look forward to seeing members do that work.

I also look forward to voting for the bill at second reading and sending it to committee. I welcome any questions or comments from my colleagues.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the last several months, we have seen accountability raise its head here in Parliament with Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-11. Without accountability, it is as though the government does not actually care what we are doing because with a majority government, the NDP and Liberals can make decisions based on what they think is right and there is no accountability.

With Bill C-5, the evidence is not there. Bill C-21, taking legal guns from legal gun owners, is another non-evidence-based process. With Bill C-26, which we are talking about today, it is time that we start building in some processes for accountability so the government is actually accountable for what it is doing.

Criminal Code

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about Bill C-295 and the new offences it would create in cases of neglect of seniors. The neglect of seniors and vulnerable people is a serious problem in Canada, and abuse is endemic.

Ensuring the protection of vulnerable seniors is a very personal matter for me. My grandfather and his companion were defrauded by a caregiver. They were vulnerable seniors who were victimized by an individual who they had every reason to believe they could trust. The circumstances are sadly familiar to thousands of other families who have endured senior abuse. They spent the final months of their lives worrying about money.

My grandfather's companion of nearly 30 years not only endured my grandfather's final months of illness and death, but also feared confrontation with the individual who defrauded them and remained in their neighbourhood. She worried about running into her at the grocery store or other places. My grandfather, who was 90 years old and in ill health at the time, did not live long enough to see justice done.

The police did not treat the case as a priority despite the case being relatively simple and straightforward. There was a poster in the police station that invited members of the public to report situations of abuse. The public communication around this problem is that it is a problem and should be reported to police, yet the police are slow to act and did not act within my grandfather's remaining time alive.

My grandfather was luckier than many. He had the support of family and was not ruined financially by the fraud. The particular fraud was not sophisticated and it was detected. Eventually, charges were laid and an arrest was made. He was not injured in body and was not denied physical care, but he was a vulnerable person like so many other Canadians.

I thank the member for drawing attention to the issue of vulnerable Canadians through this private member's bill. This bill is welcomed.

Sadly, neglect does not only occur in institutional settings, but this bill would address issues where neglect within institutions occurs by making changes to the Criminal Code that would hold operators and managers of such facilities to account when they neglect to provide the necessities of life to people in their care. I think all Canadians would agree that this level of neglect is a criminal matter and ought to be a criminal matter.

This bill would also allow courts to make an order prohibiting persons charged with certain offences from working in proximity to vulnerable Canadians. That is a good step forward as well.

There is so much that could be done. With private member's bills, we are very limited in what we can do with the one chance we get if we draw a low number for Private Members' Business. I certainly do not blame the member for all the things her bill does not do. However, there are many problems that need to be addressed, including fraud, emotional abuse, violence against seniors, abuse, neglect and other harms that occur outside of institutional settings. These are pressing issues the government needs to deal with.

I am disappointed by the government in this case. It has taken a private member's bill to make any headway on this issue, despite the Minister of Justice's own mandate letter, which calls upon him to take action. His mandate letter calls upon him to finalize a proper definition for “elder abuse”. It calls upon him to get better data on this problem and to establish new offences and penalties. He has not done so. This bill from a private member will, but the government, which has said this is a priority, has failed to do so.

The bill would actually fulfill a piece of the Conservative platform that my colleagues and I were elected on, so I certainly support the member in this. It does not matter to me who gets credit in this kind of thing. We want to improve the lives of Canadians, and that is what we can often do in Private Members' Business, so I support her efforts, but I am disappointed in the government for its lack of progress in this area.

We have a minister who was tasked with this, and I wish he had spent more time on protecting vulnerable Canadians than he has on expending enormous effort on Bill C-21, where the Liberals have had to backpedal on those amendments they put forward at committee. There was Bill C-5 that the minister put forward, which would actually weaken penalties and sentencing for violent crimes and other crimes.

Therefore, it is disappointing that we do not have a minister who will take this seriously, but fortunately we do have a private member who is taking a positive step forward.

We know the vulnerabilities of seniors in institutional care, like the vulnerability to neglect. This was all laid bare during the pandemic. We heard other members comment on this. The abandonment of vulnerable seniors, the failure to supply the necessities of life to seniors, is appalling. It was appalling to many Canadians, so action needed to be taken.

It is outrageous, really, that the Canadian Armed Forces would be called in to provide care in seniors facilities. That is not the purpose of our armed forces. That is not something we would normally think of in terms of aid to civilian authority by the Canadian Armed Forces. We are thankful for their ability and the work they did, but what a failure it was, down to an individual level in some cases, and certainly a failure of the management of facilities to ensure that vulnerable Canadians are able to get the necessities of life.

On the data, the minister's own report says there is an enormous gap and a failure to understand the extent and patterns of types of abuse, but Statistics Canada knows a bit about that. It says that between 2014 and 2019 the rate of violence against seniors grew faster than for any other age cohort, so we know that violence against seniors is on the rise. We know that fraud among seniors is on the rise.

I support what this member is doing with her bill. I am glad that this House is now taking time for us to give public voice to the vulnerable and to ensure that, I hope, fewer families and fewer seniors spend their final months as victims of crime. With that, I thank the member for her private member's bill.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition in which the petitioners oppose Bill C-21 and are asking for it to be repealed because it would do nothing to prevent gun smuggling or crimes involving firearms.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents, in particular law-abiding firearms owners. There are two aspects to the petition. The petitioners are calling on the government to drop the last-minute amendments to Bill C-21, which I note has occurred, and in particular to focus on criminals and not law-abiding firearms owners.

The petitioners emphasize the requirement for the government to use its own data, in particular Public Safety's commissioned report done a few years back by Hill+Knowlton. It points out that over 100,000 Canadians oppose a firearms ban in this country.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to stand up for law-abiding firearms owners, sport shooters and farmers with gun legislation, quit targeting them and go after criminals instead.

Criminal Code

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House. Of course, speaking on issues as weighty as medical assistance in dying, these are perhaps some of the most difficult things we will speak of in the House. I note that this is going to be an issue I am sure we will face in the chamber over the next several months, and perhaps again, as the bill comes to pass.

Today we are talking about mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition for Canadians to access medical assistance in dying. The bill is presenting legislation for a one-year delay. Why is the government asking for a one-year delay? Certainly, this is about the concerns Canadians have across this great country with respect to the presentation of the government.

Perhaps, it will be similar to Bill C-21, when the issues Canadians had were brought forward by the Conservatives, and the Liberals had to change position on that bill. We know that there are mental health advocates who have significant concerns about the bill, such as the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry, which brought forth issues related to mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition.

One of the things that is germane is to help people understand what it is we were studying at the joint committee on medical assistance in dying. We were talking about mature minors. We were talking about advance requests. We were talking about Canadians with disabilities. We were talking about the state of palliative care in Canada, and we were talking about Canadians who suffer with a mental disorder. When we looked at these particular topics, there were many contentious issues, and it became heated and personal at times, which was perhaps as it should be.

For comparison, I think we need to understand that, when we look at Canada and its perhaps 38 million people, we know that in the last year, 10,000 people died from medical assistance in dying. In California, which has a very similar population and perhaps similar rules, there were only 400 deaths due to medical assistance in dying.

People might ask why we would not compare with the Netherlands. It has been at this for a while, and maybe it is a better representation. They have a population of 17 million people and about 5,000 people died to medical assistance in dying.

They already have statutes that include depression, dementia and all the other things I have mentioned previously, so if we wanted to compare that directly to Canada, including depression and perhaps advance requests, they would have about 10,000 deaths at the current time. We know that in Canada, without mental disorder and without advance requests, there are already 10,000 people who have died between 2020 and 2021 due to MAID. That is a year over year increase of 32%.

That, to me, is concerning, and I think that anybody in this chamber would also know that on the world stage, sadly, in my mind anyway, Canada has been a world leader in medical assistance in dying, and many countries around the world have brought forward concerns of the slippery slope that Canada is now going down.

One of the things the government has promised to Canadians, which they have not delivered upon, is the Canada mental health transfer, and I am sure that my hon. colleague just before me spoke about this, so I am sad to have missed it. That was a $4.5 billion transfer that was promised by the government in its platform in the last election. I read a new article about this, and it says, “in August 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said this brand new transfer was needed”—

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners have requested that Bill C-21, as it is an affront to the private property rights of Canadians, not go forward and that it be recalled.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will have seen that we are consulting with legal firearms owners. In fact, that is precisely what we have been doing throughout the course of Bill C-21 and will continue to do so, because we know that hunters, trappers and first nations are part of the Canadian social fabric.

More to the point, what we are targeting are those AR-15 style guns that have been used in some of the worst mass-shooting tragedies in this country's history. That is what we are after. We are also going to support the CBSA, which is stopping an increasing number of illegal firearms at our border. That is something that I hope my colleague would support. However, in order to do that, he actually has to vote for those appropriations, and the next time we do that, I hope he will.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing that work. We are doing that work by introducing a national ban on assault-style rifles, which have been used in some of the worst mass killing shootings in this country's history. We are doing that work with Bill C-21, which would raise maximum sentences for hardened gun traffickers.

What is my colleague doing with regard to that bill? Her and her party have been filibustering it. They should stop doing that. They should study the bill. They should support our policies. They should also support the investments we have provided for law enforcement and for addressing the root causes of crime when it comes to the building safer communities fund. They voted against each and every one of those things. They should reverse course.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

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

Mr. Speaker, typically, I think our answers are supposed to be as long as the questions, which means that I am going to be making another speech given how long my colleague's question was.

First of all, I could respond to the member for Drummond that his question does not matter to me one bit either, but I will try to be a little more polite than he is on that front.

As I said in my speech, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois wants sovereignty; it is a left-wing party that supports the Parti Québécois. There is no denying it.

The Government of Quebec is not the Parti Québécois. The Bloc Québécois does not have the sole authority to speak for all Quebeckers. That is patently untrue. I am a Quebecker and proud of it, as are my Conservative colleagues and even several Liberal members. We are all Quebeckers and we all speak for Quebec.

When I make connections between Bloc Québécois positions, I look at their platform and I look at the state of affairs, such as bills C-5, C-75 and C-21. I could go on and name more, but I do not have enough time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.

After eight years of the Prime Minister's dismal governance, he is now trying to turn attention away from his record, the cost of living crisis of his own making, the highest spikes in inflation in 40 years and the doubling of the price of rent and the cost of mortgages. He wants to turn Canadians' attention away from the record use of food banks, the record credit card debt and the fact that he tripled the carbon tax. He wants Canadians to forget that violent crimes have increased by 32%, that gang-related homicides have increased by 92%, that he has close ties to lobbyists who cost a fortune and that he has violated ethics rules.

The Prime Minister is trying once again to sow division in Canada. He is also trying to create a fake constitutional crisis. That is his latest attempt at dividing people and turning attention away from his failures.

The Bloc Québécois has no solutions for Quebec's real problems. On June 15, 1991, more than 30 years ago, in protest at the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and a few other MPs founded the Bloc Québécois for a “temporary” period. Would I have been part of that group? Perhaps. However, the temporary Bloc Québécois of 1991 in no way resembles the Bloc Québécois of 2023. In any case, this was not what Lucien Bouchard intended at the time.

Today, we understand why the Bloc Québécois, like the Liberal Party of Canada, is completely out of touch with the reality of Quebec residents. It is using a full day, an opposition day, to talk about the Constitution, when there are so many other matters that are more important to Quebeckers.

As the Quebec lieutenant for the Conservative Party of Canada, I am trying to understand where the Bloc Québécois is going with its sometimes nebulous strategies. I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the duly elected members, but rather the political party, which only cares about Quebec sovereignty and which, despite the rhetorical flourishes of its leader, has only one thing in mind: to bring down the Canadian federation.

This is why I question its strategic decision to devote a full day of debate to a subject that does not interest Quebeckers: the Canadian Constitution. Are there no topics that are more important to Quebeckers nowadays?

Despite its grand patriotic speeches, I sense that the Bloc Québécois is only focused on the Liberal government and its leftist agenda.

In the last eight years, we have seen a disoriented Bloc Québécois trying to score political points on various issues, but the people of Quebec expect their federal members of the House to work for them.

Article 070 of the main proposal prepared for the Bloc Québécois' upcoming national convention in May states: “We have the right to make mistakes, rethink our positions and change our minds”. That being the case, it should take this opportunity to course correct.

I can think of several examples of questionable choices made by the Bloc Québécois. Was it a good idea to support the Liberal government's Bill C-5, the infamous bill that allows street thugs to avoid prison time and sex offenders to serve their sentence at home instead of in jail where they belong? Was it a good idea to vote with the Liberal government in favour of Bill C-75, which allows the worst criminals to be released on bail when they are still a threat to society? Was it a good idea to punish hunters and indigenous people by supporting the Liberals' Bill C-21?

The Bloc has a very leftist agenda. It is the Liberal government' best ally. Are Quebeckers aware of that?

I hear members laughing. They can go ahead and laugh all they like, but facts are facts.

When Lucien Bouchard formed the Bloc Québécois, he clearly indicated that the party was meant to be a temporary measure. Over 30 years later, we are really seeing the wear and tear. Paragraph 018 of the Bloc Québécois's main position paper states, and I quote, “We, like the vast majority of Quebeckers, naturally think of the Quebec National Assembly when we talk about our government.” We see here a party that is still trying to find itself.

This political party claims to support the Quebec National Assembly and the Government of Quebec. However, during the most recent Quebec election campaign, the Bloc Québécois put all of its energy and resources into supporting the Parti Québécois and working against Coalition Avenir Québec, the party that won the election by a landslide and now forms the government. How can the Bloc claim to be an ally of the Quebec government when its objective is to get PQ members elected? Also, how can it be recognized as an effective voice for Quebec when it only managed to get three PQ members elected?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Speaker, rest assured that I am excluding you from this argument, but I get the impression that Quebec does not have many friends in the House. This has been made particularly evident by what seems to be—and this may seem harsh—the Liberal government's descent into hell. The government is essentially the only one to blame, and it is useful in this context to revisit—and, again this may sound harsh—a recent debacle. I will let you be the judge of that. Speaking of judges, we will, once again, have to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter.

I have made a little list. Bill C-21 on gun control was a lesson in clumsy backtracking, an unruly fiasco and a retreat that was anything but strategic. There was not even a whiff of them admitting to an error—an implicit error—and no recognition of the fact that, indeed, one must consider the safety of civilians and women while also preserving the legitimate privileges of sport hunters.

One example is the electoral map. I remember going to the Gaspé region last summer, just a few days after the Prime Minister, when the first new version of the electoral map had been considered and the riding of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was disappearing. The Prime Minister was in the region and had not said a single word about the fact that the regions in Quebec were being weakened. There might even have been a threat regarding the expressed desire of the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine to keep the file. The Prime Minister, however, never said a word; again, the government is essentially its deputy minister.

There is Medicago, a company, a flagship in technology research that, due to a kind of negligence perpetuated over time and interventions that were often too late, risks seeing the achievements of Quebec engineering go to Japan, subject to the good will of Mitsubishi, which will certainly be a major loss for Quebec and Canada.

There is the acquisition of Resolute Forest Products by Paper Excellence, which is owned by Sinar Mas. That represents 25% of cutting rights in public forests in Quebec and does not qualify in the new Bill C-34, which does not even protect it. Good heavens, if that is not protected, what will Bill C-34 protect?

There are obviously the health transfers. That is really very interesting. Of everyone here, we see that only the Bloc Québécois is both speaking for Quebec and representing the provinces' common front. The Bloc Québécois is the only party to stand up for Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We will wait for the thanks from the benches next to us. Only the Bloc Québécois is standing up for the will of the provinces, the territories and Quebec, while the others are being opportunistic or lazy. We will be told that what we are doing is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time; it is very revealing of how things work.

There is the McKinsey case. I do not have time to go through everything about McKinsey. There would be far too many secrets to be brought to light, like McKinsey and ethics, McKinsey and lobbying, McKinsey and defence, McKinsey and standing offers, and so on. McKinsey's former boss himself—who is surely not as naive as he tried to make us believe in committee—said that, if he had been the client, he would not have signed the contract that the Government of Canada signed. That is interesting. There is also McKinsey and immigration, as well as McKinsey and Century Initiative. One hundred million Canadians, how nice. That is quite a lot, given Quebec’s inability to absorb, over time, in French and with our values, the number of immigrants that that requires. I asked Mr. Barton whether he had considered Quebec. They did not consider it at all. It was not even on their radar.

Based on the ignorance expressed, my word, I want to be the boss at McKinsey. He does not work that hard and says he does not know anything. Also, I suspect the pay is not too bad. McKinsey has a role to play in border management and, of course, in language and identity.

There is also the exploitation of Roxham Road. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, according to recent revelations, not only do we have criminal smugglers, we now have an all-inclusive package on offer, on both sides. A bus ticket is provided and migrants are openly and brazenly sent to Roxham Road. No one likes handcuffs. However, a brief moment of discomfort from being handcuffed is worth it for migrants, who are very happy to have reached Quebec; of course Quebec is paying the costs of welcoming them in a humane manner.

There is the appointment of Ms. Elghawaby. I will not repeat the whole speech and I do not want to make this personal. That said, it was clear that the government has an extraordinary ability to isolate and protect itself. If our homes were as well protected as the government, we would not need insulation.

Of course, there is also the referral of Quebec’s secularism law to the Supreme Court of Canada in the hope of overturning it.

Beyond that, the divisiveness over Bill C-13 is quite dramatic. I would not want to invite myself to a Liberal caucus meeting, and I think its members would not like that either, but there must be some very passionate conversations within that caucus. It must be just as fascinating as the Conservatives’ conversations about abortion. There may be a few little things that need to be resolved. For our part, everything is going very well. The federal government may also go to the Supreme Court over Bill 96, which deals with the French language.

We have now come to the motion on the notwithstanding clause, which may also go before the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to speak about a very interesting aspect. In principle, Trudeau senior said that the will of Parliament had to ultimately prevail. That is why the 1982 Constitution, which we consider to be a despicable document, includes this principle of ensuring the primacy of the democracy of parliaments. Let us keep in mind that we have never signed on to that Constitution. We have been pointing that out for a few weeks now.

That was quickly tested. In 1988, the Ford decision established, on the one hand, that the use of the notwithstanding clause was legitimate and, on the other hand, that the role of the court was not to engage in pointless discussions, but to rule on the substance and wording of things.

Let us not forget that Mr. Lévesque firmly invoked and inserted the notwithstanding clause in all of the laws passed by Quebec’s National Assembly. Many fits were had, but Canada survived.

It is important to understand the current government’s legislative or judicial approach—or flight of fancy. By invoking federal documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, and by appointing new judges as old ones leave, the Prime Minister hopes to replace the decisions of the provincial legislatures and of the House of Commons with those of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to modify by interpretation the Canadian Constitution. As we said earlier, the Constitution is much more theirs than it is ours.

Having had the opportunity over time to appoint judges, the Prime Minister is confident that he has a Supreme Court of Canada whose constitution, pardon the pun, will be favourable to him. He wants to modify the Constitution by having it interpreted by judges he has appointed. This happens elsewhere in the world, and it is rarely an honourable procedure. A Parliament is always sovereign, otherwise any one Parliament could impose its will on another.

Quebec’s National Assembly is sovereign in its choices and its votes. Quebec’s Parliament is, in a word, national. Now, more than ever, Quebec’s National Assembly needs the notwithstanding clause, which guarantees the prerogative and primacy of parliaments and elected members over the decisions of the courts. Courts are there only to interpret, despite the fact that we have learned, particularly over the course of Quebec history, that interpretations can, over time, and without casting stones, be nudged in a certain direction. We do not want government by judges, but government by elected members, government by the people.

As I said at the beginning, it is important to mention that the notwithstanding clause is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember a question period during which we were told that it was awful, that they were not against the notwithstanding clause but against its pre-emptive use.

Of course, as it is wont to do, it is when the government runs out of arguments that it starts spouting the worst nonsense. That was a good one. If the notwithstanding clause is not to be used pre-emptively, what is the point?

The notwithstanding clause is like a COVID-19 vaccine. People get vaccinated to avoid getting COVID-19, not after they get it. The notwithstanding clause protects Quebec’s laws. We could say “the laws of Quebec and the provinces”, but let us be clear: Aside from a recent notorious case in Ontario, the notwithstanding clause is mostly used in Quebec, particularly when it comes to national identity and jurisdiction, precisely so that we do not have to hear the courts say that we cannot apply our own legislation, that it is being challenged, and that we now have to use the notwithstanding clause to fix a situation that, in the meantime, has had a deleterious effect.

Clearly, that is not how we want to or even how we should use the notwithstanding clause. Too often, harm would be done, and the same courts would have to suspend the application of the law. The notwithstanding clause is a small piece of sovereignty. “Sovereignty” is a word that frightens people. Using it inspires strong feelings and cold sweats. Sovereignty, however, is merely exclusive jurisdiction held by any party. This Parliament claims sovereignty, except in the case of Chinese spy balloons.

It is essential to recognize that, by invoking the notwithstanding clause, a jurisdiction that is a parliament, which by definition is sovereign, is claiming a small part of its sovereignty in jurisdictions which, logically speaking, should be exclusive to it.

This logical relationship between identity, the fact that Quebec is a nation begrudgingly recognized by this Parliament in a very specific context on June 16, 2021, and the fact that Quebec is the one that must resort to this clause is because Quebec is a nation, and its parliament is a national Parliament. Allow me to say that, in my opinion, this is too little.

It is too little because, of course, we want Quebeckers—in their own time, obviously, but we will encourage them—to think about sovereignty as a whole, a nation with a single national Parliament, which, as Mr. Parizeau said, would collect all taxes—we are capable of doing this and we would be having an entirely different conversation about health transfers—vote for all laws applicable in Quebec, sign all treaties and honour all existing treaties, as necessary.

Usually, people do not think about being normal. It goes without saying. We embrace normality, we seek normality and we assume normality. Quebec just needs to think about it right now, and for some time, and observe how its national identity is treated in a Parliament that should at least be a good neighbour if it cannot be a good partner.

This remains an essential reflection, but given the current context, it may no longer hold tomorrow or the next day. The game of cat and mouse, the jurisdictional stonewalling, the encroachments, the interference are anything but progress, efficiency or instruments for the greater good.

Until that necessarily deeper reflection occurs, we certainly need, in this Parliament, to solicit the good faith of colleagues and elected officials in recognizing that Quebec and the provinces have a legitimate right to use the notwithstanding clause. We are not requesting a change to the way things are done. We are asking that it be acknowledged. We simply wish to state the truth and are calling on Parliament to say that it does indeed reflect reality.

Voting against this truth would be akin to challenging the Canadian Constitution itself. This temptation was evident in the Prime Minister's comments. That raised some eyebrows, given the legacy. We are calling on the House to recognize a literal truth, if only out of respect.

In the meantime, and regardless of today’s vote, the Quebec nation and its representatives have only one true friend in this place. Only one political party raises the issues of language, identity, immigration, health care funding and the preservation of the notwithstanding clause in this House. Its members have just as much legitimacy as those of every other party. They are the members of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois is proud to stand once again, without compromise, but with a sense of responsibility and with courage, to raise, defend and promote the interests of Quebec, which we hope will accomplish even more.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Abbotsford.

Conservatives have been calling for changes to this act for years. For nearly eight years, the government has ignored the growing role of state-owned and state-controlled enterprises in Canada’s economy. For nearly eight years, the government has failed to take seriously the threat posed by the government of Beijing.

For nearly eight years, the government has sat back passively while Beijing has used ostensibly private corporations as proxies to project its government's power and influence into the Canadian economy. After eight years, the government has finally tabled legislation to strengthen the Investment Canada Act, which is a good thing, but it is something that should have been done years ago.

To assess the government's credibility on the issue, it is important that we examine its track record on protecting Canadians from investment by authoritarian regimes in the Canadian economy. This is a government that, in 2017, failed to conduct a national security review when Beijing-owned Hytera Communications bought Norsat.

The former minister Navdeep Bains and the Prime Minister falsely claimed that a review was done, obfuscating the mandatory 45-day waiting period for approval with an actual, fulsome national security review as defined in the existing act. Even Tom Mulcair, the former leader of the NDP, criticized the government for rubber stamping the Hytera deal.

This takeover had serious consequences for Canada’s credibility with our allies. Norsat was an American defence contractor, and Canada allowed this takeover without a proper security review. Such a review was an option, and is an option, for the government under the existing Investment Canada Act, and that option was not undertaken on the Hytera deal.

Since then, Hytera has been banned from doing business in the United States and faces 21 espionage charges. This is the company that the government let into Canada without a national security review on the Norsat deal. The same company then received a contract to supply radio communications work to the RCMP. The same company had a contract with the Canada Border Services Agency for X-ray equipment.

This is the same government that also failed to stop Anbang from buying a chain of seniors homes, as we heard earlier from the NDP. Anbang also bought other buildings, which raised concerns not only about the substandard care that subsequently occurred in the seniors homes it took over, but also about corporate espionage in other buildings that were part of that deal.

This is a government that contracted with a company, whose founder was connected to the very top echelons of the PRC, to supply X-ray equipment to 170 embassies. This is a government that took years to finally ban Huawei from being a supplier of infrastructure to Canada’s 5G network, despite the obvious national security concerns. This reluctance has compromised Canada’s credibility with our Five Eyes intelligence partners. The government’s current industry minister approved the Neo Lithium takeover without a national security review

The opposition has spent years raising important questions about cracks and loopholes in existing laws, while the government claimed that there was no need to change the law until now, and it falsely claimed that it was using the tools available to it to help keep Canadians safe. It did this with such arrogance. It claimed that the opposition was simply playing politics whenever we raised a question about national security.

This is what the Liberals do. They dig in, when they find themselves on the wrong side of an issue, then finally flip while ignoring their past intransigence. This sudden flip, like what we are seeing right now with Bill C-34, on the need to address investment by autocratic, state-owned enterprises, is just like last week’s flip on Bill C-21 when they attempted to ban hunting rifles and shotguns.

Did they admit that the opposition was right all along? No. Did they thank the opposition for raising a point that they made a mistake that needed to be fixed? Did they admit that they were misleading Canadians for months? Did they admit that they were falsely claiming that the opposition was lying about the consequences of their amendment? Did the Minister of Public Safety admit that he was wrong and that he had misled Canadians? Did he apologize for attacking the opposition's motives? No, of course not. That is not what they do.

What they do is attack the motives of those who criticize them. When it becomes absolutely clear, like it is on this issue today of investment by autocratic state-owned enterprises, they might backpedal, but they do not take responsibility. They do not apologize or admit they were wrong.

As the opposition, we are just doing our job when we raise questions about public policy concerns, identify mistakes the government has made and identify shortcomings in existing laws or potential consequences of new laws or policies. The opposition has an ancient and sacred obligation to force the government to try to be better, and I just wish that it would listen from time to time, especially when it comes to national security.

Liberals and Conservatives are probably not very far apart from each other on the role of government when it comes to national security. I would hope that we are not far apart. This is not an ideological difference. We all care about our national security. With that in mind, I have some suggestions and points for Parliament to consider and hopefully also for the government to consider.

The bill would give the minister significantly more power but not necessarily a pathway to the best decisions. One thing this bill would do is shift power from cabinet, from order in council, to direct ministerial decision-making. This may result in faster decision-making but not necessarily better decisions.

I am concerned that the lack of a clear, strong definition of a state-owned enterprise may harm foreign investment in Canada overall without protecting Canadians from hostile foreign governments. The Canadian economy relies on direct foreign investment, and the parliamentary secretary talked about that. We need foreign, private capital from reciprocating open economies, and we have to be careful about what signals the bill sends to global capital markets.

I am disappointed that the bill does not simply allow the government to ban governments of autocratic and hostile regimes, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea or the People's Republic of China, through a simple list. This might be the easiest way to deal with the small number of countries seeking to exert power and influence within the Canadian economy through state-owned enterprises.

I am concerned that the bill does not appear to capture transactions where, rather than shares, a Canadian company sells assets, such as mines, farms, intellectual property and data, to a foreign state-owned enterprise.

I am especially concerned that maintaining the existing $400-million threshold for a mandatory government approval of a foreign takeover leaves the door wide open for the growing concern of Beijing-affiliated entities buying up farms, fishing enterprises, wharves and airport cargo facilities. These enterprises may have diverse ownership, but in aggregate, they have the potential to distort markets for important commodities, such as food. If the buyer of a Canadian company is the Government of China, the threshold for a national security review should be zero dollars, and every transaction of the foreign enterprises owned by the state should be captured.

In short, I do agree that the bill is an attempt to address serious and important policy concerns, and I will support the motion that is before the House to send the bill to committee. My opposition colleagues and I are committed to working with other parliamentarians to make the bill better.

No party has a monopoly on good ideas. This is a great opportunity to show Canadians that parliamentarians can work together and that the result of Parliament's adversarial process is that the best ideas will prevail through debate. As we debate the bill and study it at committee, we can co-operate, get beyond past mistakes and get serious about protecting Canadians from property theft, espionage, intellectual property theft, market distortions and other harms that result when foreign governments that are hostile to Canada's way of life take advantage of our open society and open economy. We are talking about transactions that are not fuelled by the market but by the raw power of a state to exert its influence on the Canadian economy.

Therefore, I will vote for the bill, but it is weak and needs a lot of work.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country for her passionate speech. I think she demonstrated that the carbon tax does not need to be increased. That is what we are calling for.

People keep saying in their speeches today that the Conservatives will not let up on this topic and that we keep repeating the same message in our opposition motions. Why would that be? It is because we in the Conservative Party want to work for Canadians.

Economically speaking, we are in a precarious position. We are on the edge of a crisis, and by all indications, things are going to get worse in the coming months.

Our Conservative conscience is prompting us to beg the government to give Canadians some breathing room. It is odd that we are being accused of hammering away at this issue. I think it is our duty as parliamentarians. Our Conservative values will always motivate us to go in that direction.

I would like to remind the House that my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn moved an opposition motion today. It is clear. I am not saying that out of partisan pride or sheer stubbornness. We just need to take a good look at the situation.

The first point in today's opposition motion states that “(i) the Bank of Canada governor has admitted that the carbon tax contributes to inflation”. It is not our partisan colleagues, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP or the Liberals who are saying this; it is the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It is important to understand that there is some separation. Perhaps that makes the information more serious, unequivocal and impartial.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada is not the only one backing up our discourse and our request. The second point of the motion states that “(ii) the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that households will pay more in carbon tax costs than they get back”.

The Liberals are saying that there is no problem with their tax because they are putting the money back into taxpayers' pockets. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that, yes, there is a rebate, but it is not equal. Once again, this leaves less money available to Canadian taxpayers.

The third point of our motion states that “(iii) the government plans to triple the carbon tax, which will increase the price of gas, groceries, and home heating”. That is a fact.

Let us consider Canadian citizens. I hope that all members of the House meet with their constituents. People in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier are telling me that everything is more expensive.

If the government were sensitive to those concerns, it would do what several other countries are doing and cancel all tax hikes. I think that is reasonable under the circumstances. That said, the Liberals and the government are not that sensitive.

The Liberals have been in power for eight years. They talk until they are blue in the face about how the carbon tax is the best way to reduce greenhouse gases and how it is the magic solution. It might be the easy solution. The government is pocketing more money while seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadian taxpayers because there have been no results.

Unfortunately, in eight years, there has been no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is more revenue flowing into government coffers. In this economic context, I believe it is reasonable to give Canadians a little bit of assistance.

I would like to set the record straight on something. This morning, I listened as members of different parties described the Conservatives as climate change deniers. I want to make it clear that our leader recognizes climate change, but he is not in the habit of taking shortcuts and waving a magic wand. The past eight years have shown us what happens when one waves a magic wand.

I have a document here. It is part of my notes, so I can show it to members. It is a chart from the Conference of the Parties, or COP, on the environment. There are 63 countries on it. At the top of the chart are Denmark, Sweden, Chile and Portugal. Then, in the next section, we see Egypt, Greece and Indonesia. Even further down the list, in the orange section, we see Thailand, Belarus and Turkey. Incidentally, I want to say that my thoughts are with the people of Turkey. I can only offer them supportive thoughts because, unfortunately, I am not there, but I think that the international community needs to take action to help the people of Turkey who are dealing with this disaster.

I will keep going with the list. The United States is ranked 52nd, and Canada is ranked 58th. Ouch. Nevertheless, the government is determined to increase the carbon tax. That does not make any sense.

As I was saying, the Conservative Party cares about the issue of climate change, and we have solutions. We are being accused of criticizing the carbon tax without offering solutions. As our leader mentioned this morning, we need to provide help to the clean technology sector.

Canada is unique in that it is the second-largest country in the world behind Russia. The carbon tax may not be effective here. We should not be using the same model as a European country whose population is very concentrated when our country is very different. Let us do the smart thing and develop clean technology. Yes, it can be an economic lever. Money is the main thing, but that money needs to be raised honestly, by creating prosperity, not by taking it out of taxpayers' pockets through a carbon tax.

Why not invest in clean technology? Why not develop it here? Canada has talent and know-how. We could then export that clean technology and make Canada a leader on the environment and on clean technology. Why not?

According to an article on the Radio-Canada website this morning, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is focusing on Quebec's caribou population. He should instead be working on reducing greenhouse gases by identifying methods other than the carbon tax. He should let the provinces take action and look after their own territory. Quebec has a better record than Canada on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In their eight years in power, the Liberals have never managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In closing, I would like to quote a passage from the Radio-Canada article. In response to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Quebec's minister, Benoit Charette, said that he had the impression that the agreement reached in August with Ottawa would preclude federal intervention. He stated, “The federal government's approach in this matter is hard to follow”.

It is hard to follow on many files. We need only think of the official languages file, Bill C-21 and McKinsey. I do not know if anyone is at the controls in this government.

It is unacceptable that we are being criticized. We, the Conservatives, are working on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, and we will continue that work.

Firearms

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of residents from Kelowna—Lake Country and the surrounding area in relation to the government bill, Bill C-21, on firearms. It is quite lengthy, but I will go right to the asks of the government. They are asking for the government to, first, stop targeting law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and farmers with gun legislation; second, immediately withdraw the amendments tabled on November 22, 2022, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security; and last, withdraw the existing bill, Bill C-21, and restart consultations with the firearms community, firearms owners and public safety experts.

Public Safety

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague has pointed out an extremely important problem that exists in Montreal, Quebec and across the country.

I would like to understand one thing. If my colleague is concerned about violence linked to firearms, why do the Conservatives systematically block measures that would make it easier to control firearms in Canada?

Our government introduced Bill C‑21 to put a stop to handgun sales across the country, but the Conservatives are against it.

Firearms

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

Madam Speaker, we are committed, and we promised Canadians that we would take action on gun violence. On the particular amendments the hon. member has referred to in Bill C-21, an important bill that would deal with gun violence, I will acknowledge there was not enough consultation. There were not enough conversations with indigenous peoples across the country. That is why we are committed in our committee to listening to the concerns and to making sure that our legislation is one that will protect public safety and keep Canadians safe. I look forward to working with the hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, every community deserves to feel safe, and that is what Bill C-21 was originally intended to do: end handgun violence. Instead, the Liberals introduced amendments at the eleventh hour that would make it harder for indigenous people, farmers and hunters to support their families and put food on their tables. Today, the Liberals finally dropped the amendments that the Assembly of First Nations said would go against its treaty rights.

Will the minister apologize for the mess he made with these amendments?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the minister told me he is going to Washington next week. I know there is a Chinese surveillance balloon going over the U.S., and I understand the government has withdrawn its terrible firearm amendments to Bill C-21. When the minister is there, if he spots it, maybe he could do something about it with an appropriate firearm.

After eight years, the government is finally getting around to making some administrative changes to the Investment Canada Act. Why is this important? Because foreign direct investment is increasing and causing us great problems in Canada.

I would start off by informing the House that, while we think these amendments are inadequate to deal with the things that are happening, we will be voting in favour, in principle, at second reading of this bill. These amendments improve the bill, just not enough. However, we will be seeking considerable amendments to improve this bill at the committee stage.

The minister went through some of the things the bill does, and I will start by commenting on a few of them. I think the preimplementation filing change required in certain industries when a deal is done, that the filing and notification go to Investment Canada, is good. It should happen after closing. I would have hoped the minister would make all investment applications subject to prefiling. I do not know what the point is of looking at a foreign direct investment after it is closed; it is very difficult to unwind a transaction.

The minister spoke about the streamlining of the process to speed it up within the 45 days. We have some concerns about removing cabinet from that process, not necessarily up front, because I think that process to start it is an important one. However, when the review comes back from officials, either for or against it having a national security or net benefit issue, we believe that should go to cabinet in all cases. I know the experience during the Harper government was that when these things came back to cabinet, there was robust discussion on every one, and this resulted in a better decision, Therefore, we think that the power to actually decide that at the end of the day should still rest with cabinet.

It does add the ability for the minister to create a list of targeted industries through regulation. We would like to learn a little more about what industries the minister is going to address. I think there are industries outside of the list. These include, to be parochial in my neck of the woods, seafood and other areas that are being targeted in the food sector by state-owned enterprises from less co-operative countries.

The interim conditions and all of that in the bill are a good addition to the bill.

We want to explore the area of the legal process appeal issues around secrecy for national security or commercial reasons a bit more at committee. We just want to make sure we understand that, in the future, we are not going to be blocking information the public should have. I think there are some transparency provisions in this bill that say if the minister rejects an acquisition, the reasons for this have to be fairly transparent and public. I do not believe there is a requirement to do that now.

However, there are some things we do not believe the provisions address. Let us start with the record of the current government regarding China's takeover of many of our important assets. The other thing the bill does not do, and I will talk about this in a few minutes, is deal with the sale not just of companies, but of the assets of companies.

In 2017, there was, and still is, a company called Norsat out of British Columbia, which also owns a company called Sinclair in Toronto. It was acquired by Hytera in China, which is partially owned by the Government of China, in the critical telecommunications business. Even though he was urged many times in the House, the minister of industry of the day refused to do a national security review of that acquisition. The minister has the freedom to say that he does not think it is a problem and he is not going to do it. Therefore, no national security review was done of that acquisition.

That is a problem because now we come to January 2022, when Hytera was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States in and then banned from doing business in the United States by President Biden. Yet eight months later, the RCMP bought radio frequency equipment to go into the communications system, giving the Chinese state-owned subsidiaries access to all the locations of the RCMP communications services. There was no public security review of that. These are the things that still fall through the cracks.

As I mentioned earlier, Manitoba-based lithium mining company, Tantalum Mining Corp., known as Tanco, was purchased in 2019. Again, the previous minister, not this one, refused to do a national security review of that acquisition. When this minister asked three Chinese state-owned enterprises to divest their Canadian critical mining assets, he did not even include this one, yet it is the largest producer of lithium and cesium in Canada, and all of it goes to China.

In 2020, we all know, the Department of Foreign Affairs bought X-ray equipment from a Chinese state-owned enterprise to go in all the embassies. I believe this minister may have been the minister at that time. No, he was not, but it was a Liberal minister, obviously, who said it was okay and did not back off on it until it was raised in this House.

In March 2021, as the minister referenced, the minister updated and enhanced the guidelines for national security reviews in the absence of an updated act, although an update could have been done. In January the minister did not even follow his own guidelines when he had a divestiture order that included neither the Neo Lithium Corp. nor the Tanco Corp.

In December, I mentioned Hytera and the Canada Border Services Agency. Of course this week we learned, although it is not an acquisition, that the scientific arm of the army of the People's Republic of China is doing research on artificial intelligence and supercomputing in our universities, our 10 biggest universities. They own the IP from that, and it is partially funded by Canadian taxpayers.

These are the things the bill does not address. It is a shameful situation that we are actually helping the largest surveillance state in the world, which used that technology not only on its own citizens but also to repress the Uighurs, and we actually helped develop that technology. Of course we know it uses that technology here. In 2017, China passed a national security act, and clauses 7 and 10 of that act require all citizens and all companies to spy on companies and people in the world. It is against the law for a company based in China to not spy and steal technology and information from companies abroad. We have allowed these takeovers to happen in the last eight years under the Liberal government.

There are several areas that we need to talk about for additional improvement. There was a really good House of Commons industry committee report, which our leader was the vice-chair of in the last Parliament. Most of the recommendations have been ignored by the Liberal government, even though government members put the recommendations forward. Not only is the Liberal government ignoring the recommendations that the official opposition put forward, but it is also ignoring the recommendations for improvement to the Investment Canada Act put forward by its own members of Parliament.

Recommendation number one in that report dealt with state-owned enterprises. What it asked for was that state-owned enterprises for all countries that we deem to be authoritarian or hostile to Canada have an automatic review. The way that is done is by reducing the financial threshold for the automatic review. Right now, that is $415 million. A state-owned enterprise can come in and buy anything it wants in Canada for under $415 million, as my friend from the NDP referenced in his question to the minister, without any scrutiny by the government.

Even in my own community, four fish-buying businesses were bought by Chinese state-owned enterprises on the south shore of Nova Scotia in the last quarter. That is important because those businesses set the price of what they get from fishermen. They set what the fishermen get. Through that process and through China's buying two international freight corridors, China now controls all lobster and the access to the departure of lobster from the Halifax airport. None of those transactions would be reviewable under this act. As a result, my lobster buyers would not truck their lobster to the Halifax airport, because China has taken it up. Rather, they would have to truck it to New York and Chicago to get our lobster to Asia. That is just a small part.

We know the Chinese enterprises are buying farms. They are buying up all kinds of key assets in this country, and none of that gets reviewed. Therefore, we would encourage and would be seeking amendments to this bill in committee to move that threshold for state-owned enterprises to zero in the act, requiring the minister and the department to follow that.

The government did not include any provisions that I can see in the net benefit for that issue of state-owned enterprises in foreign countries actually getting control of industries, let alone a particular asset. We are not looking at the concentration control, particularly of hostile actors going after that strategically. I know there is a provision in the bill that would allow the minister to create a list of targeted industries. We are a little skeptical that the list would be as comprehensive as it needs to be and would reflect a zero-dollar review, given the record of the current government over the last eight years. It has not even sought national security reviews of state-owned enterprises from China when it had the authority to do so on those acquisitions.

The bill does not include a provision to actually list countries. Other countries have looked at that. In addition to selected industries, the minister should have the authority, through regulation, to have a list of state actors and countries that we do not believe are advantageous for our economy or are actually a threat to our economy if they continue to try to buy not only our companies but the companies' assets. I will come to this in a minute.

The bill would change the process, which I referred to earlier, of the involvement of cabinet. We would like to probe this a little more in committee, but I understand the need. The 45 days has not changed in the Investment Canada Act and there is obviously a need for speed. Therefore, the point that the minister has put forward here, which is that at the beginning of the process, the minister and Minister of Public Safety can determine when that goes in without having to go to cabinet, and this would speed up the process. We believe that is a reasonable thing, but we would want to explore that a little more in committee. However, it is on the other end that we have the problem because perhaps not all ministers of industry are as diligent as this one.

I do know, in the short time I have been working with the minister, that he is the most accessible minister I have had a chance to work with since I have been in the House, and he is co-operative. I know he understands and is concerned about what the opposition members think in terms of looking at amendments to the bills, and he takes our suggestions seriously. We want to look at this issue wherein a minister who was perhaps not as diligent would be less involved in making the right decision when it is determined to be a net benefit, or not, or when the research comes back and says it is a national security interest, or not. Whatever the recommendation from officials, we believe it should always go back to cabinet for discussion before the final decision is made.

The act does not attempt to change definitions of state-owned enterprises or look at the issue of what constitutes control.

One does not have to buy 50% of a company to control a company. Someone can buy small percentages of it, get a number of seats on the board or change management, which Hytera has done. It has changed management in Sinclair and Norsat. None of those things are really looked at very strongly in Bill C-34 and need a little more consideration.

One of the interesting things brought up by the industry committee at the time of that report, and I think my friend from the NDP was on the committee, was the issue of subsequent takeovers. A Canadian company may be acquired by a company or an industry that we think is okay, and it gets approved as it is not from a state-owned enterprise. Subsequently, though, down the road, that company can be bought by a state-owned enterprise. There is no provision in this bill to give the minister the power, when that happens, to automatically relook at whether, in that transaction, we should be forcing the divestiture of that Canadian asset from that future transaction of a state-owned enterprise down the road.

That is very important, because Russia and China are getting more aggressive at doing these things. They come in through the front door but also through the back door, and we need to be very vigilant about that.

The minister mentioned intangible assets. This is a big area. In 2009 it was not so much part of the economy, but it is big now. One of the ways our economy can be harmed is not just through the purchase of a company, but through the purchase or sale of some of its assets. It could be simply that it is not just the taking over one of our mining companies, but that one of our mining companies is selling a strategic mining asset, like a particular mine, to a state player we are not comfortable with. It could be that a database gets sold. It could be that a particular artificial intelligence or knowledge-based patent we have and own in Canada gets sold. That company may still remain Canadian, but more and more companies are looking, when they develop these things, at those assets.

Probably the worst example in Canada is Nortel. When Nortel went into bankruptcy, it had the most patents, I believe, of any technology- and knowledge-based company in Canada. The Canadian liquidator's responsibility was to maximize whatever it could get for the assets. China quite regularly goes in and pays four, five or six times what a business is worth. That is what it did in my riding last quarter. It paid five times what the business was worth. It paid $10 million for $2-million-valued businesses, which is way below the threshold.

It took advantage of the Nortel situation, and almost all of those patents were sold by the liquidator to a Chinese state-owned enterprise that became Huawei, which is banned now in the United States. It took the government only five years to figure that one out. We helped create Huawei through our weak rules around foreign investment in state-owned enterprises in assets, and not just the companies, so we need to have more study and understanding. We can look at those in committee, and I know the minister is taking this seriously. I see him nodding there, so hopefully we can work with the government to improve Bill C-34.

Nonetheless, the bill is an improvement over the existing act and would give the minister and the industry some much-needed clarification. Therefore, for the most part, at this stage, we will be supporting this, but we will be seeking many more amendments in committee. I look forward to hearing from the very experienced member, the shadow minister for industry from the NDP, who has been in the House for a long time and has been on the industry committee for a long time, to see what he proposes, in terms of his speech but also his work in the House.

I will conclude there, and I look forward to the debate by all members in the House on this bill, which is very important for Canadians.

Public Safety

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

Madam Speaker, maybe we will try a different tack. That response sounded very similar to the last time I got up here and asked the parliamentary secretary about a very similar issue.

We just spent the day debating the requirement for immediate bail reform. My question is to the parliamentary secretary. He stated earlier today, as has the minister, that he is committed to working with the premiers of all the provinces to address the needed bail reform in this country. Could he commit tonight to how quickly they are going to act on making these necessary changes to bail in Canada, and for once to start standing up and making this country safer versus, again, as I keep saying, bringing forth legislation like Bill C-21, which targets law-abiding Canadians, not going after criminals?

Opposition Motion—Bail Reform

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing sets us apart from the Bloc Québécois. One day, we will be in power and we will be able to introduce bills. We will then be able to correct the provisions spelled out in Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois will never be able to do that.

The Bloc Québécois should ask itself some serious questions about certain positions it has taken in the past weeks and months. For example, there is Bill C‑21 and the amendments it supported to ban certain firearms. That happened. It is true.

It also supported Bill C‑5, which is directly responsible for the release of this rapist to his home. The Bloc Québécois should ask itself these types of questions when it is time to support and adopt motions.

The Conservatives have a solution. It is not perfect, but it is a starting point. I hope once again that the Bloc Québécois will make amends and support our motion.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

It is always a privilege to stand in this House to speak on behalf of my constituents of Brantford—Brant. After eight years, the Prime Minister and his government are solely responsible for our failing justice system. This is pressing and urgent; bail reform is needed now. Far too often, we are hearing Canadians use language such as “catch and release”, “a revolving door” and “an unequal justice system” to describe the state of affairs in Canadian bail courts.

In my almost two decades of prosecuting in the trenches of our criminal justice system, I have repeatedly witnessed dangerous criminals being released on bail. I am honoured to add my experience working in the criminal justice system to such an important debate. A major concern during my lawyer years was our inability to keep violent repeat offenders off the streets and in custody where they belong. I was unable to vocally criticize the lenient bail system as a Crown attorney, so I made the decision to become a politician to effect change.

The Liberal government wants Canadians to believe it has crime under control with its justice policies and that it is on the right track. I thank our Conservative leader and all my Conservative colleagues for bringing this debate into the House and for showing Canadians that this Liberal soft-on-crime agenda has broken our bail system and eroded confidence in our judicial institutions.

In 2019, to codify the principles outlined in the Supreme Court of Canada case Antic, the Liberals passed Bill C-75. Although it was intended to modernize the bail system, the effect of this legislation was to allow offenders arrested for violent crimes to be released back on the street fast enough to commit other crimes, sometimes on the same day. In fact, this was an occurrence that I routinely saw as a Crown prosecutor. I would often read Crown briefs noting the accused laughed and bragged to the arresting officers that they would be released in hours.

After receiving numerous calls and emails from my constituents, who shared their concerns about Canada's justice system, I met with the Brantford police chief, Rob Davis, and the president of the Brantford Police Association, Constable Jeremy Morton. It was important to learn directly from them what the root causes are and how we as parliamentarians can address them.

Chief Davis shared with me that it is disheartening to all police officers to see that they are doing their job, they are catching people, they are putting them before the courts, they are asking that they be held in custody but they are being released. He said that criminals are brazen and are laughing at the current justice system. He said oftentimes, they are getting back home before the officers do, and the next thing he knows, they are committing twice as much crime. It is a telltale sign of the level of brazenness among criminals. He also reflected on how the system has dramatically shifted and said that criminals' rights have now superseded the rights of victims.

For years, Canadian law enforcement worked hard to build trust in the police and give victims a level of security if they came forward, and the perpetrator was put into the justice system. Now, everything, according to him, is upside down. The Liberal soft-on-crime approach, he says, is bringing the justice system into disrepute, and the concern that law enforcement now has is that if society loses faith in the justice system, we may find ourselves in a situation where citizens will decide to take things into their own hands.

I never thought as a parliamentarian that I would be quoting Oprah Winfrey, but on her show, every Christmas, she would have giveaways. She would point to the audience and say, “You get a car”, or they got another gift. That is precisely what has happened with the Liberal government and the Prime Minister given their approach to the bail system in Canada. With the Prime Minister, for the last eight years we have said, “He gets bail. She gets bail. Everyone gets bail”, regardless of the fact that they have repeated criminal offences on their record, regardless of the fact that they have an outstanding charge and regardless of how serious the charge is.

It is a statistical fact that the majority of serious violent crimes committed in this country are committed by a handful of repeat offenders. For example, in Vancouver alone, 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in one year. That is 150 arrests per person, per year. Brantford Police Chief Davis further spoke on this issue and stated that we have entire neighbourhoods that one or two bad apples will terrorize as repeat violent offenders.

The data published by Statistics Canada clearly shows that between 2008 and 2014, under the Harper government, Canada witnessed an annual decrease in the crime severity index. From 2015 onward, this trend changed dramatically.

Since the Prime Minister took office, the number of crimes has grown year after year. Violent crime has gone up 32% in one year. Gang-related killings have gone up 92% since the Liberals formed government. In 2021, there were over two million police-reported Criminal Code incidents, marking an increase of 25,000 incidents since 2020.

Since the fall of 2022, tragically, five Canadian police officers have been killed while on duty. With hundreds of murders in 2021, one Canadian was murdered every 10 hours throughout the year. The 2020 data shows that Canada's homicide rate is roughly double that of the U.K. and France, and four times higher than that of Italy.

Even though the Prime Minister and his government are claiming that Bill C-75 was meant to clear the backlog of people waiting for bail hearings, experts say it has done much more than that. Essentially, the government has told judges dealing with bail applications that they need to make sure anyone accused of a crime is released at the earliest opportunity and on the least serious conditions. Let that sink in. Primary consideration is for the accused, not for the victim and not for society at large. Some judges and justices of the peace feel that the bill has put shackles on them and has resulted in an increase in releases, even by violent offenders.

Last month, all 13 premiers sent a letter to the Prime Minister calling for amendments to keep more people in custody as they await trial. This call was supported by police chiefs, police associations, mayors and provincial attorneys general from coast to coast to coast. Recently, the Toronto police chief opined on the issue of bail reform and argued that only judges and not JPs should be allowed to hear bail cases when serious gun charges are involved.

A multipronged approach to bail reform is required. According to the Supreme Court, everyone is entitled to a speedy trial. However, it can often take years to get to trial. We need to speed up the system so that when criminals show up in court, the judge knows they will get a speedy trial and may be less inclined to bail them out.

The Liberals said they were open to discussions, but that has been their position since the provincial justice ministers raised that issue last March, almost a year ago. Instead, the government has been busy passing Bill C-5 and Bill C-21.

This January, a judge in my riding of Brantford—Brant said that my hometown community is “plagued by gun violence—murders caused by guns and people walking around with firearms. It never used to be as prevalent as it is today.” She said, “Now it’s an epidemic”, and that the Crown should get tougher on offenders.

To put it into perspective, the Liberals and the NDP have ignored the real way that most criminals get their guns under Bill C-21. They eased bail conditions for serious violent crimes under Bill C-75 and decided to put the safety of victims at risk with Bill C-5. The Conservatives have been calling for a balance to the justice system and bail reform for years, but the Liberal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada continues to defend the current system.

I have a very quick primer on bail. Bail legislation reflects the fundamental principles outlined in Canada’s charter that attempt to balance the rights of the accused by upholding the presumption of innocence with public safety and confidence in the system. The law allows for people who are deemed risky to be detained for certain indictable offences, or when confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by releasing a person into the community.

Canada needs bail reform now to pull back from the failed views put forward by the government. We cannot continue to endanger our communities by letting repeat violent offenders walk freely on our streets and simply wait before they harm somebody. How much more blood needs to be spilled on our streets? How many more police officers need to lose their lives before the government finally acts?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I do agree with her that this is a complex issue.

This morning, we are talking about public safety and crime in our streets. One of the big problems we have been talking about for months is the presence of illegal guns in our communities. I agree that this morning's motion will not solve anything. It is yet another populist motion.

Still, the Liberal government is not doing much to crack down on illegal guns coming in. Do not even talk to me about Bill C‑21. It does address some things, but it does not address this problem.

Does my colleague agree that more should be done at the border to stop illegal arms trafficking? Is she applying pressure on her party from the inside to make something happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a happy new year. I know that February is a bit late, but this is one of the first times we have seen each other this year. I would also like to wish my constituents, the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, a happy new year. I will begin by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

I am very pleased to speak to this issue, which I believe is exceptionally important. Law and order is obviously an area that we, as members of Parliament, are concerned about.

I agree with my Conservative colleagues on several aspects of this motion. In the past eight years, violent crime has increased by 32% and gang-related homicides by 92%. The number of violent crimes has skyrocketed, inevitably jeopardizing Canadians' safety. Five police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year. That is enormous when compared with previous years.

In Ontario, 44 police officers were killed in the line of duty between 1961 and 2009. That is about one per year, and, in my opinion, that is one too many. In 2022, five police officers died while on duty. That is not just too many, that is totally unacceptable. The people who undertake to protect the public should never pay with their lives.

In this respect, I am in complete agreement with my colleagues, and I must say that the efforts made by the Liberal Party in recent years to prevent violence, limit the number of firearms in circulation and help break up gangs have been less than stellar.

It would be wise to try not to get lost in the statistics. There are many statistics out there, and they support some of the facts included in the Conservatives’ motion. Overall, the number of crimes reported by police in Canada in recent years shows an alarming increase.

Hate crimes have increased by 72%. These are mainly crimes motivated by hate towards a religion, sexual orientation or ethnic origin.

Gun crimes have risen 25% in the past 10 years. As I was saying earlier, there were more murders in Montreal in 2021 than in any of the previous 10 years. Some 37 murders were committed, compared with 28 in 2020, with 25 being the result of a dispute or settling of scores within organized crime and 12 involving Canadians between the ages of 12 and 24.

In 2021, police reported 34,242 cases of sexual assault. That is about 90 cases of sexual assault for every 100,000 citizens, keeping in mind that only about 6% of sexual assaults are reported to police.

Let us not fool ourselves: This increase in violence is not just a big-city problem. In my own rural riding in the Gaspé, in Eastern Quebec, a man was arrested for weapons trafficking in Pointe à la-Croix barely three weeks ago. He allegedly supplied illegal weapons and narcotics to Montreal street gangs. In 2021, a raid in Gaspé led to the seizure of multiple illegal firearms, more specifically, 50 long guns, 10 handguns, bullet-proof vests and ammunition of every calibre. Last August, shots were heard in a residential neighbourhood in Gaspé, and an individual was arrested.

The picture we are painting here is pretty grim. The government must take concrete and legitimate measures to address Canadians’ concerns and to ensure their safety.

In its motion, the Conservative Party calls on the government to repeal the elements enacted by Bill C-75. Although it is true and entirely legitimate to point out that certain elements of the bail reform are problematic, as we have seen in the news recently, the fact remains that the wording of the motion is also problematic. Some elements are simply false.

Let us be clear: No changes made by Bill C-75 require any judge to release violent repeat offenders. With all due respect, saying otherwise, intentionally or not, is more of an opinion than a proven and verified fact.

To say that the bail system is no longer working is also not entirely true. The bail system is based on the art of finding a balance between public safety and the presumption of innocence, which is protected by something that is quite dear to the Conservatives, specifically, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Bloc Québécois had a number of good reasons to vote in favour of Bill C-75, even though, as we said, given recent events, we can now see that the legislation has its flaws. I am sure that my colleague from Saint‑Jean will elaborate on this idea because she is an extremely competent and seasoned legal expert. I will be happy to just go over some of the facts that were checked and quantified.

While the convicted offender population has been gradually declining in recent years, the number of people held in pre-trial detention almost tripled in the past 35 years. This increase occurred while the overall prison populations remained relatively stable during the same period. In fact, the crime rate had been falling since the 1990s.

Under the law, there were more innocent people held on pre-trial detention than actual offenders serving custodial sentences, after being convicted, in provincial and territorial correctional facilities since 2004-05. This data is widely available. It comes from an analysis conducted by the Department of Justice in 2015 in connection with Bill C-75. My colleagues should therefore be able to obtain the report and base their decisions on those facts, which were checked.

We must keep in mind that, financially speaking, a growing population in pre-trial detention will result in considerable additional costs for governments at every level. This only places more pressure on already limited resources.

The debate surrounding the bail system is perfectly legitimate, and it is a good thing. On this point, once again, I agree with my Conservative colleagues. Bill C-75 has several flaws, as the provincial premiers unanimously pointed out to the federal government. Basically, they are asking for the same thing as one of the elements included in today’s motion. They claim that it is justifiable to strengthen bail laws so that people who are prohibited from possessing firearms and are then accused of a serious firearm offence cannot easily get bail. I think that some work could be done in this area.

This inevitably leads me to the actions that the government should take to prevent gun crime. We have said it often enough: Bill C-21 does not necessarily fix the problem of the proliferation of firearms. I was happy to be able to discuss this with the minister. Other actions must be taken in other areas.

More specifically, we need more border controls and prevention measures in large cities. Obviously, financial investments must be made, and the government always enjoys showing off its financial record in this area. However, there are other things that can be done, and the Bloc Québécois has presented several options, for example, collaborative efforts between the various police forces. There are a lot of things that can and should be done.

Although we agree with the Conservatives on several aspects of this motion, the idea of strengthening legislation is rooted in the ideology of law and order. Right now, the proliferation of firearms in our major cities is a problem, we cannot say it often enough. Although this reflex reaction is understandable, a number of experts, including Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Guelph who studies the bail system, claim that there is no evidence to suggest that a harsher approach to bail would improve public safety. I think that is something to think about.

Given that the text of the motion moved today includes elements that may not have been fact-checked and that could potentially turn out to be false, it is impossible for the Bloc Québécois to support this motion, unfortunately. As I said, we agree with several aspects, and the government must do more. It is true that crime has increased in recent years, but unfortunately, because of certain elements in the motion, we cannot support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear the minister's stance on this important issue. We have been working together on Bill C‑21.

Gun violence is top of mind these days. While Bill C‑21 addresses some of the issues, it does not address them all, unfortunately. Most importantly, it does not do anything about the proliferation of firearms.

In 2022, Montreal's murder rate hit a 10-year high. Something must be done, and it is the federal government's responsibility, because it is in charge of borders.

During interviews, the minister has said more will be done in addition to Bill C‑21. What exactly does he have in mind? Will he make it happen fast? We cannot go on having murder rates that keep going up year after year. Concrete action must be taken to prevent gun violence.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for the opportunity to have this important debate about bail reform. Before I come to the remarks that have been prepared for me in advance, I want to take a few moments to acknowledge the grief, trauma, loss and the sense of suffering being felt by communities across the country. I had the chance to visit with many communities, whether it was out west in Vancouver or out east in the Atlantic communities with the families and the victims in Portapique and Truro.

More recently, it was in Quebec City, with all the families and survivors at the commemoration of the sixth anniversary of the mosque shooting.

It is also in my hometown, where we are seeing a recent spate of violence in our public transit system. It is imperative that we have a thoughtful discussion based on a number of pillars. Yes, we need to take a look at our policies and our laws.

I want to commend the Minister of Justice for many of the reforms he has advanced to improve the administration of justice so that we can focus on serious offenders who do, in many instances, need to be separated from the community for protection. Also, I want to underline the work that he and our government are doing to address many of the systemic challenges that have led to overrepresentation in federal incarceration facilities, as well as provincially, when it comes to indigenous peoples and racialized Canadians. We cannot have these discussions in isolation.

I have grieved with families. I have grieved with the community of law enforcement officers who have lost five of their own. We owe it to them and to every single Canadian to make sure we are informing our discussion on the basis of principles that are underlined in the charter, but equally by the experiences of those who have suffered. It is in that spirit that I hope we can have this debate today.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has spoken about an openness to receiving proposals with regard to the bail system. I have worked on the front lines of the criminal justice system. I have seen how these laws are applied in a very real, practical and tangible way. Even as we navigate the proposals being put forward by the various constituencies, including the law enforcement community, I hope all members will appreciate that there is no one cure-all for the challenges we face. We need to take a look at the entire suite of laws and policies, not only with regard to bail but also with regard to how we are tackling gun violence.

There is a bill currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Bill C-21, which would equip law enforcement with additional tools to tackle gun violence by raising maximum sentences against hard traffickers and by giving law enforcement additional surveillance tools to interdict the organized criminal networks that would seek to traffic illegally firearms that make their way into our country, potentially to be used in violent crime to terrorize our communities.

We also need to take a look at the other investments the government is making to support law enforcement in keeping our communities safe, including a $450-million allocation over the last few years for CBSA. That will enable law enforcement agencies to acquire the resources, the technology and the techniques that they need to build on the progress that they have made in the last two years where they have seized a record number of illegal firearms.

Beyond those investments, I do think it is important as well to talk about prevention. One of the challenges I find around the debate on public safety is that we place great emphasis on laws and policies. We talk about Bill C-21. We talk about the acts that have been passed, and led and shepherded by my colleague, the Minister of Justice. We talk about Bill C-75, which, by the way, was a piece of legislation aimed at addressing the systemic and chronic backlogs in our court system so we could focus on the most serious offenders who commit the most serious crimes and pose the most serious risk to public safety. That was the genesis of Bill C-75.

The purpose of Bill C‑75 was to reduce the case completion times.

To hear some colleagues from the Conservative Party mis-characterize that bill as catch-and-release legislation does a disservice to this debate. We do not need slogans; we need concrete solutions. I would submit to the chamber that this is precisely what the Minister of Justice and this government have been doing. I would also say the same thing with respect to Bill C-5.

We heard a colleague from the NDP point out that the last time the Conservative government had the reins of government, it introduced a number of policies that were reviewed and then struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. We do not need a return to the failed policies and overreach, which detract and diminish from the independence of the judges to assess on the merits and based on the facts and circumstances of each offender who comes before them. What we need is a thoughtful, constitutional approach to this matter, and that was the point of Bill C-5. It was not to promote catch-and-release policies, which has been overly simplified and distilled. That may play well on YouTube or in social media, but, again, it does a disservice to the complexity of the challenges that are faced when it comes to keeping our community safe.

As we focus on laws and policies, we do not talk enough about the underlying root causes. We do not talk enough about the need to provide additional support for mental health care, homelessness and poverty. We do not talk enough about the need to provide additional skills, experience and confidence to those who are most at risk of being exposed to criminal elements, which I have seen across the country and in my own community.

When I had the chance to travel to James Smith Cree Nation and grieve with those families, community members told us that they knew their own, that they knew how to ensure they could take care of them and put them on the right footing. It is only through collaboration and partnership with those communities through initiatives like the building safer communities fund, a $250-million federal initiative that is administered out of Public Safety Canada, that we can start to address these challenges at the root cause so we can stop crime before it starts.

In the context of the debate we are having today, we need to put as much emphasis on looking at preventative strategies, which we can work together on to advance, to see crime come down. No matter which side of the debate we are on, no matter which party we belong, no matter which constituency we represent in the chamber, the one thing I am assured of is that all Canadians are unified behind the common cause of wanting to reduce gun crime, wanting to reduce any kind of violent crime, which may find its stem in the systemic challenges that I have discussed. We need to come together to have that debate and not resort to slogans, bumper stickers or any of the other catchy phrases that we heard in the to and fro of the heated debate in the chamber, but have an actual and thoughtful debate that is based on facts and constitutional principles. That is precisely what I hope we can do today.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in today's debate on Bill C‑239, which deals with a promise that the Conservative Party itself proposed in the summer of 2018.

We also moved a motion on February 5, 2019, here in the House, on this clear and legitimate request from Quebeckers and the Quebec National Assembly, specifically to cut the paperwork burden on Quebeckers significantly by allowing them to file a single tax return.

On April 24, 2021, all of my Conservative Party colleagues voted for this measure in Bill C‑224. The single income tax return responds to a request that is dear to the hearts of the people of Lévis—Lotbinière and all Quebeckers. All Quebeckers are required to file two tax returns as soon as they start earning an income, even if they have not reached the age of majority. This noble and legitimate request will save a lot of time and money for Quebec families and all Quebeckers. It is important to note that Quebec is the only province in Canada that still has to take on this onerous task.

Whether it relates to this bill or any other measure that would be good for the Quebec nation and the entire Canadian population, nothing seems to make the Liberal government lift a finger since it came to power in 2015, because saving time and money is simply not one of its values and is not in its DNA.

Let me give a real-life example of when all my children were still living under the same roof at home. At the time, it meant 14 individual tax returns for one house, plus two returns for my small farm. Think about it, that is 16 tax returns under one roof. That is a lot of repetitive and counterproductive work forced on families, students and young workers, who are eager to be active in the workforce, which is in need of labour now more than ever.

True to their values, Conservatives have always been committed to simplifying the lives of Quebeckers, saving them time and money, and increasing their quality of life.

We cannot shy away from certain words. We are living under a coalition government, and this cronyism between the Liberals and the NDP is disastrous for all Quebeckers and Canadians across the country. This arrangement is damaging our democracy and prevents any good measures from being adopted. We saw proof of this when the NDP and the Liberals voted against Bill C‑224, sealing its fate.

We saw further proof recently with my private member's bill, Bill C‑215, which got a majority but may not be adopted at third reading because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are still refusing to give it a royal recommendation. I would like to remind members that my bill would extend EI benefits for people with serious illness to 52 weeks, a fix for outdated legislation that has not been amended since 1971.

There are a lot of good bills here, including the one before us now, Bill C‑239, which is perfectly valid. However, we have a major problem in the House after eight years of Liberal incompetence that is now making itself felt across Canada and in every sector.

Our Canada is broken. It will never be like it was before. We are experiencing the repercussions of lack of leadership and political will to bring positive, long-lasting change to the lives of people in Canada.

Under the Liberals, life has become very expensive. Inflation, taxes, crime and drug deaths are on the rise. Honest citizens like hunters and farmers are being attacked and penalized by Bill C‑21. We have a Liberal government that will do anything to help its cronies get funding and contracts in exchange for a $500 ticket to a dinner. The Liberals managed to legalize marijuana and now want to decriminalize hard drugs. However, when it comes to helping honest people who work hard, day in and day out, people who are responsible, or people who are seriously ill and simply deserve our support, there is no danger of Liberal favouritism. There is no danger of giving these honest people a free ride. We hear more than a simple “no”. It is a resounding “no” to anyone with common sense and logic, and this is all currently endorsed by the NDP.

This government is really old, worn out and outdated, not to mention fundamentally incompetent.

I remember all too well the Liberal argument against adopting a single tax return in Quebec. I can already see the return of the stale rhetoric of the Minister of National Revenue—we just heard it. The House has already heard responses using the simplistic argument that having a single tax return would result in massive job losses, which is unfounded and, moreover, would happen at a time when there is a dire need for labour across Canada.

I would also like to remind the minister and my colleagues that the number of public service jobs has increased by 32% from 2015. My constituents write to me to tell me that they can no longer make ends meet, have no savings, are using food banks to feed themselves and their family, can no longer afford their rent, have to work when sick or, even worse, have to declare bankruptcy. Like them, I am very worried about our future and that of our children and future generations.

The aspirations of Quebeckers are eroding after eight years of Liberal incompetence. The single tax return that has been a Conservative election promise since 2018 will still not see the light of day, I am afraid. The NDP has to go back to being an opposition party and stop propping up the Liberal government. We all know that the 32 Bloc Québécois MPs are not the ones who can make the change that Canada really needs.

I am proud that the people in my riding, Lévis—Lotbinière, trust me and the leadership of the Conservative Party to put an end to the Liberal incompetence that we have seen for eight years now—eight years too many. The Conservatives are the best equipped to work for a more productive Quebec, a stronger Quebec, a richer Quebec, a Quebec that is a partner in Canada's success, a Quebec that is proud of its culture and heritage, a Quebec that is worthy of the French language, a Quebec that is respected by the Conservative Party of Canada for what it has achieved. The Conservative Party is a proud partner in the success of all Canadians from all provinces.

Historically, the Conservatives have said yes to Quebec's requests. We said yes to the construction of the new Champlain Bridge, yes to the future third link in Quebec City, yes to more power over immigration for Quebec and yes to a single tax return. That is more than a promise of change or lip service. It is a real commitment, a promise that I have been keeping every day in the House for 17 years now, along with my Conservative colleagues. I say yes for Lévis—Lotbinière and yes for Quebec.

Firearms

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, and I hope all members will have seen, this government is engaging with hunters, trappers, first nations and indigenous groups to make sure that their experiences are woven into the good work that we are doing under Bill C-21, which, of course, is to target those guns that have been used in mass killings.

We couple that with the work that we are doing to stop illegal smuggling at the border, which was $450 million. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it. We couple that with the work that we are doing to prevent gun crime, a $250-million building safer communities fund. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it.

Look beyond the words and look at their actions. They need to reverse their course and support the government's work to keep Canadians safe.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we promised Canadians that we would take action and tackle gun violence.

Our plan includes investing nearly half a billion dollars to stop illegal smuggling at the border, addressing the root causes of gun crime through the building safer communities fund, and introducing legislation that promotes the responsible use of firearms, specifically Bill C-21.

That is why I hope the Conservatives will reverse their position, support our investments and support common-sense legislation.

Liberal Party of Canada

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, everything in this country feels like it is broken. However, do not take my word for it. Let us use the words of the Liberals who are confirming this.

The member for Yukon called out his government's attack on hunters in Bill C-21. The member for Avalon called out the Liberals' carbon tax on home heating. A 25-year Liberal MP from Toronto is so frustrated with her Prime Minister that even she is calling him out publicly. The former minister of sport said that she was disregarded when it came to stopping abuse in sports. We have the Minister of Canadian Heritage now fighting with cabinet colleagues over another botched appointment. We also cannot forget the member for Louis-Hébert, who called the Prime Minister out for wedging and dividing Canadians when it came to COVID.

Everything in this country feels broken because the Liberal caucus is broken. If it cannot get its act together, the solution is simple. Just step aside because the Conservatives on this side are united and ready to go.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal government took office, violent crime has increased by 32%. There have been 124,000 more violent crimes under its watch.

Who are the primary perpetrators of these crimes? They are repeat offenders and drug traffickers with illegal guns. What is the Liberal solution? It is to remove mandatory minimums and target law-abiding hunters and firearms owners, people like this retired RCMP officer who has four handguns that were carried by his grandfather and father during both world wars. Unfortunately, due to the Liberals' handgun freeze, keeping them in the family is no longer possible.

Meanwhile, recent victims of gun violence include a 17-year-old killed in broad daylight and another police officer murdered by a repeat offender out on bail and prohibited from owning a firearm. After an armed robbery this past weekend, the regional police chief stated, “This violent incident was avoidable. Two of the arrested in this incident failed to adhere to the conditions of their release on previous charges. This is why we must pursue bail reform.”

Considering these disturbing facts, the Liberal government must withdraw its soft-on-crime Bill C-5, make bail reform a priority, and withdraw Bill C-21.

Speaker's Ruling

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I also have pending amendments with respect to Bill C-21 before the House. We know that the events, as described by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, are absolutely what occurred, and I would support the request.

I know it is unusual for the Speaker to have anything to do with procedure at the point of clause-by-clause consideration in a House committee, but in this instance, I think what is happening is almost unprecedented.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to raise a point of order regarding an amendment to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). As stated on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

The amendment in question, G-4, would amend clause 1 of Bill C-21, and the New Democrats have been clear in expressing our opposition to this amendment. The amendment seems to target those who use guns for hunting, for protecting farm animals from predators and for supporting safety in the backcountry. What is more, we have all heard from indigenous people that the amendments would not respect treaty rights nor the duty to consult.

Bill C-21 was originally intended to limit the number of handguns on our streets. Before the amendment was introduced, there was every reason to believe that Bill C-21 was on track to passing through this House before Christmas, but instead, the amendment was introduced at the eleventh hour with no ability to question witnesses about its impacts. It is a more than 200-page amendment to what was originally a 44-page bill. In our view, that constitutes an abuse of process. We are not asking the Speaker to judge the merits of the amendment. Instead, we are bringing forward a very important procedural point.

We believe, contrary to the committee's findings, that this amendment seeks to expand the scope of the bill as established at second reading since it addresses a new idea that was not considered at second reading.

The amendment is out of scope because the original Bill C-21 was meant to implement a handgun freeze. This amendment would drastically expand the definition of “prohibited firearm” in the Criminal Code to cover all sorts of long guns, including those commonly used for hunting and farming and by indigenous communities. This House never had a chance to debate this measure at second reading.

When the amendment was moved on November 22, 2022, the committee chair deemed that it was not beyond the scope of the bill. This decision was appealed, and the committee voted in favour of the committee chair's decision.

However, as we saw in the very clear Speaker's ruling on November 16, 2022, regarding amendments to Bill C-228, the ultimate decision on the scope of a bill rests with the House itself: “The Chair would like to remind members that the scope of a bill is not determined by its sponsor, by the government or even by the committee considering it, but by the House itself when it adopts the bill at second reading.”

In this situation, the committee adopted amendments that the Chair ultimately struck from the bill during consideration at report stage, because you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the amendments were beyond the scope of Bill C‑228 as passed by the House at second reading. Although we realize that the Speaker usually does not rule on a matter that is still being debated in committee, we believe that in this particular situation your opinion is necessary and important.

The committee has been stuck for weeks debating this amendment, which is, in our opinion, out of the scope of the bill. It is possible that you would rule the amendment out of order at report stage, which would make the hours of debate at committee completely unnecessary. It would be in the interest of all parliamentarians to avoid the waste of time and energy spent debating an amendment that would ultimately be removed from the bill.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-21 on firearms, law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to hunt, but criminals will be able to continue terrorizing our streets.

Meanwhile, the provincial premiers are unanimously calling on this Liberal government to take immediate action to strengthen Canada's bail system.

In December, a police officer was killed by a criminal who had been granted bail even though he posed a real threat to society.

Will this Prime Minister stop playing politics with the safety of Canadians and do what needs to be done?

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Bloc Québécois are totally out of touch when it comes to the safety of Quebeckers. They are working together to criminalize law-abiding citizens, while allowing criminals to roam free in our communities.

Bill C‑5, which was passed with the Bloc's support, allowed a criminal to avoid jail time this week despite being arrested in possession of two fully loaded guns. In addition, Bill C‑21, which the Bloc Québécois also supported, directly attacks Quebec hunters.

Why are they so out of touch?

Online News Act

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, the fact that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc support the bill gives me confidence that our opposing it is the right position to take. Quite frankly, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals supported the amendments to Bill C-21 until very recently when they started to hear from their constituents.

What I pointed out was the hypocrisy of Liberal and NDP members standing in this place and talking about this magical hoovering up. I kept hearing that the tech giants are hoovering up all of this advertising revenue when no one was forcing Liberal and NDP members of Parliament to give Facebook and Google money from their members' operating budgets to pay for advertising. That was the part I was pointing out. There is a hypocrisy in crying about that and at the same time feeding the problem.

I will take no lessons from the member on this matter. It is a position that we do not support, and we will be happy to oppose this bill.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I, in turn, congratulate our colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for Saturday's happy occasion. I wish her many years of wedded bliss.

I heard my colleague express some concerns about the eligibility of news businesses. I just want to distinguish between Bill C‑21, which we have also been hearing a lot about, and Bill C‑18. Unlike the first bill, in Bill C‑18, the government did not include a list of businesses that are excluded or included.

On the contrary, the bill has a list of criteria that businesses must meet to be eligible. This clause was improved by an amendment that requires eligible businesses to also follow a code of ethics based on fundamental principles of the journalism profession.

I want to know if my colleague, who voted against this amendment with her Conservative colleagues, believes that this amendment actually guarantees that eligible businesses will be serious, rigorous news businesses. I would like to hear what she has to say about that.

Firearms

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals could not be more out of touch with northern and indigenous communities. Indigenous leaders at the AFN unanimously oppose the Liberals' amendment to Bill C-21. This amendment is a threat to indigenous and northern ways of life. It is a slap in the face for communities that depend on hunting and trapping to live, people who are facing some of the highest costs of living right now. Bill C-21 was meant to be important legislation to deal with handgun violence, but the Liberals have chosen to play cheap political games.

Will the Liberals withdraw the amendment, stick to the main bill and stand up for northern and indigenous peoples, who are struggling right now?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that we are indeed listening to indigenous peoples. Last week, I spent the better part of a morning consulting and engaging with indigenous leaders right across the country to make sure we protect indigenous traditions, including as it relates to food security.

We are creating space for indigenous-led initiatives when it comes to public safety, and we are going to make sure the language of Bill C-21 aligns with our government's priority, which is to take those guns that were designed for the battlefield off our streets and protect indigenous traditions at the same time.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people deserve to know they are safe from gun violence in our communities. Bill C-21 was an opportunity to limit handguns and protect victims of domestic violence, but instead of protecting people, the Liberals made a last-second change that would unfairly impact hunters, farmers and indigenous people and the tools they use for food security and protection.

Concerned constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith want to know when the government will listen and clean up this mess.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that we are doing precisely that, including with Bill C-21, which would raise maximum sentences against hardened gun traffickers and give police additional powers to bust up those networks that terrorize our communities.

We also introduced $450 million over the last two years for the CBSA to stop illegal gun smuggling at the border. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it.

They have got to walk the talk on this. The Conservatives have reversed their position, and they should support Bill C-21 and all of the support we are offering law enforcement on the front lines.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a young man who was caught with a prohibited weapon loaded with 72 rounds of ammunition managed to avoid prison thanks to a Liberal law, which of course was supported by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. There is no longer a minimum sentence for this type of crime in Canada. On the one hand, the government lets criminals roam free and, on the other hand, it wants to penalize honest gun owners by passing Bill C‑21. Talk about a double standard.

Will the Liberals go after the real criminals and leave hunters alone?

Public Safety

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week we saw in the House how divisive Bill C-21 is. I believe that everyone in the House wants to ensure that Canadians are safe. In 2021, 173 women and girls were killed in Canada. We must always stand up against violence against women, but I cannot stand and watch a government mislead survivors and victims' families.

We must work towards a violence-free Canada. Bill C-21 is targeting the wrong people. We must have stronger, safer communities, free of illegal guns, free of violence against women. Members of the LGBTQ+ community and indigenous women and girls must be violence free, as must every Canadian. Femicide in Canada has increased and violence against women has increased, but crime in Canada has also increased.

Rather than making bad policies and dividing communities across Canada, I ask the government to do better. Its policies are failing. It should scrap Bill C-21 and actually consult. Make a real difference and make Canadians safe.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The bill before us seeks to make several changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The bill proposes to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions. This proposal is to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression.

When Russian dictator, Putin, invaded Ukraine, the world watched in horror. A democratic country, in a region of the world where I and so many other Canadians have family roots, was being shelled and attacked with hostile aggression.

Since the invasion of Ukraine commenced in February, the Government of Canada has imposed sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act, also known as SEMA, on over 1,000 individuals in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. However, these sanctions on their own were not grounds that would have been enough to prevent those friends of Putin from gaining citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status in Canada. Bill S-8 serves to correct that loophole.

Bill S-8 also proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions. It recommends to include not only sanctions imposed on a country, but also those imposed on an entity or a person. Such sanctions are becoming more and more common as we see dictatorial governments where the citizenry need not be held accountable for the tyrannical actions of the dictator in charge.

The sanctions against the country, although beneficial to show Canada's opposition to the actions of a rogue government and practicality, have the largest negative impact against those citizens. It is those citizens who now will bear the weight of a corrupt dictator and face the unintended impacts of our sanctions.

Bill S-8 would also expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of SEMA, the Special Economic Measures Act.

It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to provide the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, instead of the immigration division, to have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under the new paragraph 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This gives me pause. I understand the value of having the ability to have the Minister of Public Safety step in and become involved should the situation warrant it, but the current minister is certainly not a beacon of responsibility, accountability and trust.

Let us not forget that it was the current Minister of Public Safety who, in his previous position as the minister of immigration, was responsible for failing to protect the Afghan interpreters that Canada relied upon in the war in Afghanistan.

Let us not forget that it was the current Minister of Public Safety who introduced the strongest emergency legislation in Canada against his own citizens when he invoked the Emergencies Act to avoid meeting with freedom convoy organizers who came here to be heard by the government.

Let us not forget that it was the same minister who was having his Liberal colleagues turn Bill C-21 from a ban on law-abiding handgun owners and sport shooters into an all-out targeting of hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians.

If I were to go through all the failures of the current Minister of Public Safety, I would need more time than I have, but I know my colleagues are eagerly waiting to speak. I can take solace in knowing that the powers in this legislation will belong to a Conservative Minister of Public Safety after the next election, but I digress.

Currently the laws of Canada do not directly specify that international sanctions are a basis upon which we can reject permanent residents, citizenship or refugee applications. We do have faith in our bureaucracy to make the decisions that need to be made to protect Canada and the enjoyment of citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status. This new framework would provide it the ability to make clear and direct decisions that would completely implement the will of Parliament and fully utilize existing laws, like the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as Canada's Sergei Magnitsky law.

Bill S-8 also practically ensures that no sanctioned individual could appeal the actions taken against them and their application for citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status due to the vagueness of the laws. Without Bill S-8, the bureaucracy could not simply disallow an application on the grounds of the applicant being a sanctioned individual. Now they need to go through a more untraditional process of excluding them for the actions that put them onto the sanctions list, which can lead to vagueness in the rejection.

We know these sanctioned individuals typically are coming to Canada with ill-gotten gains. They therefore have the means available to them to hold up the process, litigate the decisions and not only tie up our courtrooms and appeal processes from those deserving of them, but also cost the Canadian government and taxpayers time and money dealing with these processes.

I am glad the government has finally taken the time in the House to implement the Magnitsky act in a manner that would give it some teeth. Conservatives are supporting this bill. We have always strongly supported sanctions against individuals, entities and countries that threaten the national interest or international law. We have been critical of cases where individuals with ties to prescribed organizations, but who are not necessarily on a terrorist list, have been allowed entry to Canada. We have always put the national interest first with respect to questions of citizenship and immigration. Conservatives have strongly supported the Magnitsky act.

Canadians should not worry sanctioned individuals are seeking to enter our communities when so many legal, law-abiding applicants are waiting to immigrate. Our allies must also be assured we will uphold our sanctions.

In closing, this legislation was introduced, as was mentioned previously, in the Senate in May of this year. It was passed through the Senate in under a month. That is including first reading, second reading with debate, committee stage, the report stage and the third reading with debate.

The Liberal government introduced Bill S-8 to the House of Commons on October 4, and now, on December 12, it finally gets floor time. We wonder why it took the Liberals so long to close this gap in our immigration law. What has been the hold up? It would seem the Liberals have run out of debt-inducing legislation and have decided to use these final few days before Christmas to move forward with the legislative priorities of Canadians.

Judges Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to speak to Bill C-9 today. I know this is always an interesting topic, and I have spoken to it at the other stages along the way.

I commend the Liberals for taking on the issue of judge accountability. It seems like an interesting topic for me, given the fact that Conservatives are often critical of the decisions made by judges across Canada. We find their leniency to be annoying. We find the overturning of the mandatory minimum sentencing to be frustrating, and all of those kinds of things, therefore we think there needs to be accountability for judges along the way.

Then there is the issue of comments made by judges in public. We have seen that become an issue. There are also the actions judges may take in their personal lives that are beyond the pale. It is frustrating to the public that folks in a position of authority and a position of stature in our society would behave in such a manner. These are all areas in which we need to have a level of accountability.

The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke talked about the independence of the judiciary. That is an important principle, and the bill would maintain that, for sure.

The bill does a good job around personal behaviour accountability and accountability for comments made by judges outside of their role. It would not necessarily deal with accountability in terms of making judgments and things like that, so I would suggest perhaps there is an opportunity to go forward from here.

We will be supporting the bill. It is a good first step. We have heard from folks across the country around the appeals process. Conservatives put forward recommendations to not make the Supreme Court the final appeal process, but to make the Federal Court of Appeals the final appeal process, and I would have supported that as well.

Ensuring accountability for judgments is an interesting and more complicated area. For as long as I have been here I have been trying to come up with a solution for not only maintaining the independence of the judiciary but also having some sort of accountability for judgments made that are not in line with what the Canadian public agrees with. We have seen this very recently around sexual assault and people who are intoxicated. We have seen horrendous judgments from judges in that respect.

I understand there is the notwithstanding clause here, so that Parliament can pass legislation to clarify a judgment. However, we have seen how the Liberal government has been loath to use the notwithstanding clause and has condemned other governments for using it. The notwithstanding clause is an extreme measure, and it also comes with a five-year renewal process. I do not think that is necessarily a good process.

One of the more fascinating items that has come to my attention, and I throw this out there as more of a possibility, is around judge selection by having a panel of judges put forward. As I understand it, cases are generally assigned to particular judges along the way by a chief justice of sorts. There are jurisdictional regions from which cases come that are assigned to particular judges.

There might be an opportunity for the movement of culture within the decisions that are made by judges to put forward a panel of judges rather than one particular judge. Similar to jury selection, both the prosecution and the defence would then agree upon a particular judge. If three judges were put forward in a particular case, out of the three, the prosecution and the defence would have to agree on a particular judge.

That may in fact be the free market of judges, so to speak, a selection process that would ensure judges' accountability. Judges who were making poor judgments would not get as many cases, therefore it would be a kind of corrective action. I am not a lawyer. I am an auto mechanic, so there may be huge holes in this argument, but it seems to me that it is one way of providing judge accountability without going after the independence of the judiciary.

If this place deals with judges and their inaction or their overturning of laws, because there is an interface there, that would be problematic. Putting politics into the judiciary would also be problematic. We want an independent judiciary, and that is very important. I want to reinforce that. I just put forward the idea around the panel of judges and the judge selection process as a possible opportunity for another mechanism for judge accountability.

I am now going to turn my focus to more broader justice issues in this country. We saw the lowering of sentencing across the board in Bill C-71 and now in Bill C-5. We see how the removal or reduction of sentencing has led to an increase in violent crime across the country.

Folks come to me often about rural crime in their communities and how that seems to be on the increase. Some of it is not so much to do with the laws. The laws have not changed a great deal over the last seven years, but the attitude has. That is really what frustrates me about the Liberals. The Liberals' lack of emphasis on justice and their emphasis on the rehabilitation of the criminal but not on aid to the victims or survivors are the kinds of things that have really frustrated me. There is also the lack of taking seriously the crimes that happen in our communities.

I totally understand that there is a host of things, from our prison system to our justice system to our laws, that come into play. Then there is the administration of all of it. When people feel that the system will work, that their cases will be heard, that justice will be had and, if they are victims of crime, that the person will be taken out of their communities or their property will be returned to them, then there is an appetite to participate.

If none of that is seen to be happening, there is an increasing issue of people not being interested in participating in the justice system. That goes in either of two directions. It goes to desperation in terms of not feeling like their country cares for them, but it also goes to vigilantism, where people take things into their own hands.

The Liberals have completely failed in the administration of justice. It is mostly an attitudinal thing. It is not about the particular laws or the system. It is a lot about where they place their emphasis. We have seen, since the Liberals have taken power, that rural crime and violent crime across this country have been on an upward trajectory. That is because victims do not feel that they will get restitution for the problems they are facing. Criminals do not feel they will be held accountable either.

Constituents contacted me about some pickup truck rolling into their yard. They went outside and there were people stealing scrap metal or copper right out of their yard. They confronted them, and the criminals said to call the police and asked what they were going to do about it. That is exactly what is happening in our communities. It comes from the tacit support for the movement to defund the police, from the lowering of sentencing across the board and from the lack of concern for the victim.

It is not a funding issue. We hear the Liberals saying all the time that they have more funding for all of those issues. It is not the funding that is the issue. It is the attitude. We see it over and over again.

The case in point is probably the border security issue that is tangentially attached to this. Under the Conservatives, we spent a lot less on border security. We also did not have a big problem with people coming across the border illegally. People understood that if they came across the border illegally, we were turning them right back around. When the Conservatives were in government, that was the case. That is my major frustration.

Last, I will talk a little about the firearms situation in Canada.

The Liberal government has let the veil slip. It has been trying to ban, confiscate, make illegal and criminalize firearm ownership in this country, full stop. The Liberals always deny that. They always say they are not doing that. However, they have now let veil slip and have put in an amendment to Bill C-21 that includes hundreds of hunting rifles. They were caught, and now they are saying they did not mean to and did not understand.

The Liberals are the ones who say they know how to define firearms. They are the ones telling us they have the experts on their side. They are the ones who said they paid for all the studies.

If they have done all of that hard work, how come hunting rifles are ending up on the list? They are ending up on the list because the Liberals have let the veil slip. They have been after everyone's firearms, not just the handguns, which we were fine with. We said that if they were going to do this, they were going to do this. We do not think criminals should have firearms.

However, when it comes to hunting rifles and farmers having the tools of their jobs, that is where we have drawn the line. We now know what the Liberals' plans are when it comes to firearm ownership in this country. They want to ban it. They want to criminalize it. They want to confiscate the firearms of everyday Canadians. That is extremely worrying.

This particular bill is about judge accountability, and I commend the Liberals for it. I did not think they had it in them to bring forward a bill on judge accountability. I am happy they have. I think judge accountability is something we need to ensure continues in Canada. I have put forward another mechanism for judge accountability, and I am looking forward to having more discussions on that as well.

However, I am concerned that the issues this country faces around justice and law and order do not come from the particular laws and systems that we have in this place, but from the soft-on-crime attitudes of the Liberals and their lack of concern for public safety. This has caused a dramatic decrease in the safety of everyday Canadians, with the running wild, the unaccountability and the lack of fear that we see from criminals in this country as they operate on the streets of Canada.

That is what I hear more and more from Canadians across the country. Criminals operate with impunity. People ask me about this all the time. Why do these criminals operate in broad daylight? Do they not fear the police? They do not.

We hear from Canadians over and over again that these criminals fear nothing in Canada. They do not fear the judicial system. They do not fear our police. We need to ensure that our police forces have the political backing to do what they need to do to take these guys off our streets. We have to make sure that the justice system takes these criminals off the streets and puts them away for a long time to ensure that our streets are safe. If we do not have safety in our communities, we do not have anything. That is the reality.

Safety and security are the fundamental building blocks of a stable and strong country, and we must maintain that as we watch other things fall apart in this country. That starts with the justice, law and order issues in this country, not to mention the inflation issues, the border security issues and the inability to get a passport. There is a whole host of other things that are falling apart.

We need to ensure that our justice system works and that we feel safe to walk around the streets of Canada. Therefore, I will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to questions and comments.

The Environment

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order arising from question period. The member for North Island—Powell River said during QP that the Liberals were solely responsible for the mess of Bill C-21, when in fact the NDP voted with the Liberals on time allocation. I would like to—

Firearms

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, we have heard from many northern MPs, who live in different realities from many of us in urban centres. We know there have been concerns. There has been some misinformation on Bill C-21. We know the committee added two extra meetings to make sure we are getting it right, because we always want to make sure we are respecting indigenous hunting rights. Our government will continue to do that. We know it is a constitutional right, but it is also the right thing to do.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, Nunavummiut need to hunt to feed their families and to protect themselves from dangerous predators, such as polar bears. Bill C-21 was about getting handguns off the streets, but now with this last-minute amendment, the Liberal government has shown how out of touch it is with the daily lives of Nunavummiut. My community is worried and confused.

When will the government stop playing political games and ensure indigenous communities can protect themselves from dangerous predators like—

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

Madam Speaker, opposition to the Liberals' proposed ban on hunting rifles and shotguns is growing. Yesterday, the Assembly of First Nations issued a declaration opposing Bill C-21 because it attacks treaty hunting rights. The Liberal government claims that there is no relationship more important than that with indigenous peoples, but it failed to consult with first nations, Métis and Inuit.

When will the Liberals admit that they failed to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and scrap Bill C-21?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, as a first nations person, I know that hunting is a constitutional right that is integral to many nations. Bill C-21's intent is to ban handguns and assault weapons, like AR-15s, full stop. There has been some confusion and there have been some concerns raised, but the committee will get it right.

We will always respect indigenous hunters and their right to pass on that knowledge to their children, like I plan to pass on to my son.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals promised they would keep people safe from handgun violence. However, at the very last second, the Liberals added an amendment to Bill C-21 that is not about keeping our city centres or children safe, but instead would hurt rural and coastal communities. This bill was supposed to protect people, not go after hunters, farmers or indigenous peoples.

Will the Prime Minister listen to the outpour of concerns and clean up his mess?

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

Madam Speaker, veterans, indigenous people and hunters are contacting my office with serious concerns about the last-minute amendment to Bill C-21, and yesterday, the AFN voted unanimously against it. The government needs to listen and reverse course. It feels like a target on rural communities and has distracted from the original purpose of the bill.

It is time for the Prime Minister to see his mistake and fix it. Will he?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is clear the Prime Minister and his Liberal front bench have again been caught trying to divide Canadians for political gain.

Adding hunting rifles to Bill C-21 proves that the Prime Minister and his cabinet govern for themselves. First nations leaders from across our country are voicing their concerns with the sneaky and underhanded amendments to Bill C-21. Where was the consultation? Are constitutional rights to hunt and harvest for sustenance to be protected? Why is the Liberal government criminalizing a way of life?

Every time questions like these are put to Liberals, they claim Conservatives are spreading misinformation. Yesterday, the Assembly of First Nations' Special Chiefs Assembly passed an emergency motion opposing the Liberal hunting rifle ban. Are the Liberals going to stand up today and accuse the AFN of spreading misinformation, or will they just admit to all Canadians that they are guilty of covering their incompetence with deception?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments to rebut some of the things my colleague from Kings—Hants said.

In terms of my question, which was pretty direct, from 2019 to 2021 Canada had the second-highest increase in its gross debt-to-GDP ratio out of 33 countries covered by the IMF, behind only Japan. Our gross debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 87.2% to 112.1% in 2021, an increase of 24.9 percentage points. Given that the Canadian government has accumulated more debt as a share of our economy than nearly every other country in our peer group, the expectation would be that Canada's economy fared better than others during this period. This is incorrect.

Despite leading our peers in debt accumulation, Canada did not outperform our peer group in economic growth during the pandemic. Canada had the 11th-lowest real GDP growth, 5.2%, in 2020 and the 12th-lowest real GDP growth, 4.6%, in 2021. Canada also did not outperform its peer group by achieving lower unemployment during the pandemic. Canada had the third-highest unemployment rate, 9.58%, out of 33 industrialized countries and the eighth-highest unemployment rate, 7.43%, in 2021.

I get that these numbers are a lot of numbers that just came out at everyone, but I put these numbers on the record to debunk the myth that the Liberals keep on trying to portray, that they somehow went into the pandemic later than everyone else and came out sooner. That is simply not the fact.

They spent more than every other country in the world but Japan, and our citizens are not better off. The proof is in the pudding, as 1.5 million Canadians in one month used a food bank to put food on the table for their families. That is a failure of leadership by the Liberals.

Students at universities across our country are staying in hostels or needing to use a food bank to eat or, like in my alma mater, the University of Regina, actually fundraising so students do not go to bed hungry, asking alumni for money to help feed students.

Another thing I am looking forward to is splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris and hearing what he has to say about a private member's bill he brought forward last Parliament, which still has not been implemented.

On the topic of not doing what Canadians need, I would like to talk a bit now about agriculture and the agriculture file.

My colleague from Kings—Hants left a bit of wiggle room on Bill C-234. I know he had some positive things to say about it, and I am very interested, because all the Liberal members voted against the bill in committee. As the chair, he did not have to vote, and I am really excited to see how he votes and if he is going to stand with the agriculture producers in Kings—Hants or with his party whip, whether he will be voting along the party line or voting for the people who sent him here.

I am very much looking forward to that vote, because I think that over the last couple of weeks a few members on the Liberal backbenches are starting to feel a bit of pressure when it comes to either supporting the carbon tax or supporting the amendments at the report stage of Bill C-21. I am looking forward to seeing if some of the rural members from the Maritimes or Newfoundland or some of the members from Alberta and Manitoba are going to support these gun amendments that criminalize law-abiding firearms owners, or if they are going to support their constituents and make sure their voices are heard in the chamber. There are a few votes on which I am really looking forward to seeing what some of the Liberal members in the back rows are going to do.

This motion is about making life easier and more affordable for Canadians. We hear in our offices across the country that one of the biggest strains now on families is going to the grocery store and trying to make sure they have enough food to put on the table.

Some of these increases are staggering. I get pictures sent into my office of what $100 buys now at a grocery store. It does not go a long way for a lot of these families. Some of the reasons are that fish is up 10.4% to purchase; butter is 16.9%; eggs, 10.9%; margarine, 37.5%; bread, rolls, buns, 17.6%; dry or fresh pasta, 32.4%; fresh fruit, 13.2%; oranges, 18.5%; and the list goes on: lettuce, 12.4%; potatoes, 10.9%.

These are a lot of staple foods for families. Our household is no different from anyone else's. We have three growing children. They are five, seven and nine, and they are starting to eat more and more. Like a lot of other families, we are seeing our grocery bills continue to climb, and these are the things that we need to have solutions for.

As members of the House of Commons or as public servants, we have to look for how we can ease this inflationary pain. One of the things we can do is get together and take some taxes off the prices of these fruits and vegetables and everyday essentials.

We also had a motion brought forward a couple of weeks ago to take the carbon tax off home heating, which is quite reasonable. Some of the members across the way voted in favour of that motion, and I thank them, including the member for Avalon, for voting in favour. I appreciate that very much, because he was listening to his constituents. It is incumbent on us to remember who brought us here. Former premier Wall always said that these are not our seats, that these are the seats of the constituents and we are just caretakers for a while, because someone else will come and take them. I think a few members are remembering that, and we appreciate that support very much.

When it comes down to erasing the carbon tax on the price of groceries, it is pretty much unanimous in the House of Commons that the price of groceries is too high. We are just trying to figure out how to deal with that situation. Also, the price of groceries is high because that carbon tax hits our producers; it hits the farmers and it hits the trucking industry. At each link of a supply chain, the carbon tax continues to increase the price of goods. That is something we are trying to get through to the members across the aisle and get through to our Liberal, NDP and Bloc colleagues. It is not just a one-time hit; it continually makes things more expensive.

We saw from a recent report that a 5,000-acre farm, by 2030, will pay $150,000 in carbon taxes per year. I grew up on a small family farm in southwest Saskatchewan. We had dairy and beef, and we made our own hay. We had 2,000 acres that we combined. They are not big farms. I do not know anyone who farms 5,000 acres who can take a $150,000 hit year after year. Unless common sense prevails, the only outcome for these family farms is bankruptcy.

The Minister of Agriculture was at the agriculture committee, and I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The minister was there for ministerial estimates, and I asked her to give me a definition of what a family farm is. She could not. Some Liberal members have not been on a farm and do not know agriculture. They see it as big corporate agriculture and big business, but 95% of the farms in Canada are still family farms.

The minister was taking the family out of the family farm and said that families are still okay, but it is the farm that is getting taxed. That is not a thing. The family farm is one unit. It is a package deal. Those two cannot be separated. Some are incorporated and some are not. One thing we learned through CERB was that sometimes a family farm that is not incorporated missed out on some programming.

I will leave members with this, when it comes to the rising cost of inflation. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, said himself that the increase in spending by the government has had an effect on inflation.

One more thing that is really going to hit us hard, now that the interest rate is 4.25%, is that people are going to start losing their homes. I have friends whose mortgages have gone up $750 to $800 per month. That is over a $10,000 increase in what they will have to pay for their mortgages over a year. Families, farm families and everyone in between are squeezed hard enough. They cannot absorb that $10,000 hit. They cannot absorb that $1,000 hit on their grocery bill. We in the House of Commons are going to have to come to the realization that one cannot get blood from a stone. We have to give tax breaks to Canadians.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's proposed amendment to Bill C-21 has become a textbook case on what not to do. This change was brought in at the 11th hour, with no consultation and no testimony. It has distracted from the original purpose of the bill, and it hurts rural communities.

Hunters, farmers and indigenous communities are outraged that some of the rifles and shotguns they use to provide for their families could be banned. The Minister of Public Safety blindsided Canadians when he made this mess. How is he going to fix it?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing our Prime Minister hates, it is diversity, the diversity of opinion. He goes after anyone he does not agree with by insulting them, harassing them and restricting their rights.

His latest target is law-abiding firearm owners. He is banning thousands of firearms used for hunting, while giving gangs and smugglers a free pass. The PM should spend more time up in a tree stand and less time standing against hunters. The Liberals have missed the mark on Bill C-21. When will they stop targeting law-abiding hunters and farmers?

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

Mr. Speaker, just moments ago the Assembly of First Nations, which represents indigenous people across Canada, issued a declaration publicly opposing the Liberals' Bill C-21. This Liberal hunting gun grab is not only a threat to the livelihood of hunters, trappers and sport shooters but a violation of the treaty hunting rights of all first nations.

When will the Prime Minister end his attack on law-abiding hunters and indigenous treaty rights and stop Bill C-21?

Border Communities

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, border communities have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic and have yet to fully recover. Partly this is due to the shutdown of NEXUS centres, which has created an over 300,000-person backlog.

NEXUS allows commuters, workers and travellers into the U.S. and Canada to cross rapidly, which is essential to the trade between both of our countries, the largest economic relationship in the world.

In addition, the Windsor border blockade was a threat to our national economy. It cost municipalities nearly $6 million in policing costs to remove it. The federal government has yet to reimburse the city, leaving local taxpayers on the hook for a national security action and thus becoming a delinquent deadbeat.

Even on Bill C-21, the Liberals have demonstrated ineptitude by not providing the necessary resources for our CBSA officers to stop gun smuggling.

Ignoring our border communities is poor short-term policy that will have long-term consequences for our economy.

Hunting

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to highlight the importance of hunting in our rural communities. Although I am not currently a hunter, I do enjoy wild game meat. Venison and moose meat are my favourites.

For my Franco-Ontarian community, I know that the tradition of hunting is rooted in its way of life. Whether it is back home, in eastern Ontario, or in the north, when hunting season arrives, time stops and people head for the woods.

In 2012, the current Prime Minister declared in Hawkesbury, where I was born, that the long gun registry was a failure. We have never targeted hunters with our legislation, including Bill C‑21. It is not unusual for certain amendments to be debated at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I salute the efforts of Liberal, Bloc Québécois and NDP members to ensure that hunters will not be mistakenly subject to this law.

Hunting is part of a legitimate way of life.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak recently, after the whole Michael Geist thing, so it is really good to have him here, intervening on a really dubious point of order.

In any event, we have a government that is prepared to forsake a number of Canadian jobs. Those Canadian jobs, when it comes to LNG, could have gone to Canada. Instead, they went to Qatar.

When we talk about trust, we talk about transparency. I hope I get a question from the Liberals, because I would love for them, in the preamble to their question, to answer who the 11 people are. Let us talk about transparency by default. Who are the 11? They said transparency by default and sunny ways were what we were going to get. No, we have not gotten sunny ways. We have not gotten transparency by default. Who stayed in the $6,000-a-night hotel room? Again, it is transparency by default and sunny ways.

The Auditor General's report says we are talking about $27 billion, and the government says it completed its stated aims. That is like saying our stated aim was to start a campfire. We started a forest fire, but that campfire got lit, so we did what we set out to do. That is absolutely ridiculous logic. This is why I do not have any trust in the government.

Let us imagine what we could do about illegal guns with $27 billion. We have Bill C-21, in the mess that it is. We have information that, in my view, is not accurate in Bill C-21 about law-abiding hunters. Again, where is the trust?

Firearms

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to get an answer to my question.

Once again, the government has shown that it does not have its priorities straight with its amendments to Bill C‑21. Hunters and farmers in my riding are extremely concerned about their ability to put food on the table and, more importantly, to protect their livestock from predators and other threats.

When will the government stop targeting law-abiding gun owners and finally go after the real illegal gun traffickers?

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

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Liberal firearms expert Murray Smith at committee if hunting rifles would be banned as a result of Bill C-21, he answered, “Yes.” Since then, we have heard from thousands of law-abiding firearms owners and hunters across Canada. They are rightfully angry at the Prime Minister for giving them misinformation about his Liberal plan to ban hunting rifles and shotguns.

My question today is not to the Prime Minister. Instead, it is to all the rural Liberal MPs across the way. Will they stand up for their law-abiding firearms owners and hunters today or bow to this out-of-control Prime Minister?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to Bill C-21 have caused great concern in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many in my province are avid hunters, either for sport or to put food on the table. This past year, 28,000 of the nearly 70,000 law-abiding gun owners hunted moose back home. I would like to know if the Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador will take the same stand as the Liberal MP for Yukon.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the answer is that the Conservatives are.

The reason is that we have been consistent all along in that we are not targeting law-abiding gun owners. We are not targeting guns that are commonly used for hunting. Rather, we are targeting guns that have been used in some of the worst mass shootings in this country's history, including at Polytechnique, where yesterday, the Prime Minister, a number of colleagues and I were able to grieve and stand in solidarity with those victims from Polytechnique.

I think we need to be united behind the cause of doing better in honour of the legacy of those victims, and that is precisely what Bill C-21 would do. It is high time for the Conservatives to reverse their position and support that bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been saying for weeks that the Liberal government is going after the tools used by hunters and farmers with Bill C-21, but the Liberals called it fearmongering and misinformation. They say that it is not a hunting rifle ban.

However, the Liberal MP for Yukon has publicly said that he will vote against Bill C-21. He agrees with Conservatives on this, and I know there are many more rural and northern Liberal MPs who agree with us as well. Therefore, who is spreading misinformation? Is it the Prime Minister or his rural MPs? Who is lying?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing precisely that, including some of the provisions within Bill C-21, which will give additional tools to police, including raising maximum sentences to go after hardened gun traffickers, and including $450 million to bolster resources for CBSA to allow it to build on the record number of illegal gun seizures.

Those were provisions the Conservatives either voted against or filibustered. If the Conservatives were serious about protecting our communities from gun violence, they would reverse their position and support these measures so we can go after the criminals who have been terrorizing our communities for far too long with guns.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the greatest memories that I have are my time whitetail deer hunting with my grandpa Jack, my father Kim, my brothers, my friends and my sons. There is little that is more rewarding than spending precious time with family and friends in the field, sharing laughs and creating stories to share for many generations. It is not about the hunt. It is about spending time with the ones we love.

The Liberal government wants to take away this incredible opportunity for generations to come to carry on this legacy, by introducing legislation to make lawful duck and deer hunters' tools and farmers' tools illegal. The sneaky tactics introduced in Bill C-21 are one more example of a Liberal government that is out of touch. Frankly, it has no clue whatsoever what it has introduced, let alone the freedoms it is stripping from the hands of law-abiding Canadians. Levi is my grandson, and I will not accept that he will not get the same opportunity with his “Pip”, me.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Beauce on his speech. I respect the member a great deal and hold him in high regard.

We are actually on the same wavelength on several issues that he raised in his speech.

Towards the end of his speech, he addressed the issue of Bill C-21, which is currently being studied and has many people talking. Hunters are very worried about it. I was a little disappointed to hear him getting into semi-false information about the list of prohibited weapons allegedly directly affecting hunters' rights. That is not entirely true. It is true that we have work to do on Bill C‑21, which is far from perfect. The bill is actually a bit sloppy in some respects. However, I wish everyone would stick to the facts.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the health care situation. In Beauce, like everywhere else in Quebec, the health care system is sorely strained. I would like to hear what he has to say about the government's management and the issue of increased health transfers, which the provinces and Quebec have long been calling for.

École polytechnique de Montréal

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murdered Indigenous Women

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

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

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

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

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

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

Firearms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telecommunications Act

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

Firearms

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

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

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

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

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

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

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

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

Crime Prevention

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

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

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

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

Telecommunications Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firearms

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

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

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

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

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

It is time for the Conservatives to stop picking fights.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

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

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

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

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

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

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

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

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

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

Can I get reassurance on that from the member opposite?

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

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

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

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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

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

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

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice

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

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

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

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and other legislation.

This initiative is welcomed because the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has not been updated since 1999, and much has happened since then. I do not want to overstate the significance of what is going on here. This draft bill streamlines a program that is already in place and has been working effectively for many years. This is more about the administration of a program than bold, new ideas about the environment.

I want to talk about a couple positive things with this draft legislation. The preamble of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would read, “every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment”. The preamble of the legislation would also recognize, “the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.

We have no arguments with these broad, aspirational statements, but that is what they are. They are broad, aspirational statements. There is nothing in the bill that gives substance to these statements. In fact, we are going to have to wait two years to see the government's implementation framework to see what the government considers to be a healthy environment.

This is typical Liberal Party virtue signalling. It is devoid of substance. This is what Canadians have learned to expect of the Liberal Party: lofty words with little substance.

Another positive thing in this bill is that the government listened to stakeholders, and that is always welcomed. There were experts were familiar with the benefits and risks of chemicals used in the everyday life of Canadians. Toxic substances need to be used in a safe manner, and we need to listen to experts. Bill S-5 preserves the risk-based approach to chemical management as opposed to the hazard-based approach. My understanding of the distinction is that the preferred risk-based approach focuses on actual outcomes. It does a risk-benefit analysis.

Clearly, not all hazards can be removed out of our lives, but they can be managed, and that is what this bill does. That is a good thing, and we accept that. The bill also continues the tradition of being fact-based and evidence-based. We need to follow the science, use a precautionary principle, and make decisions based on the best evidence available at the time. Generally, we accept these principles. All government decisions should be based on facts, not on ideology. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has a fairly poor record.

For example, if we take Bill C-21, which is the bill that would ban all handguns in Canada, that bill is being studied at the public safety committee right now. The public safety committee has just finished a study on reducing gun and gang violence in Canada. We heard from more than 40 witnesses who are experts in the field, and not one of them said that the problem was handguns owned by lawful gun owners.

As a matter of fact, what we were told was that the vast majority of guns and firearms used in crime in Canada were smuggled in from the United States of America. The U.S. is the largest gun manufacturing economy in the world, with whom we share the largest undefended border with in the world. Admittedly, this creates a big problem for Canadians, but taking the frustrations out on lawful gun owners is not the solution to this problem.

Wanting to stay positive, I am now going to turn to the Conservative Party's record on the environment. It is well known that Canada's most successful pro-environmental prime minister was the Conservative, Brian Mulroney. In the 1980s, acid rain was a big problem in both Canada and the U.S. Our great lakes were dying off. The environment was suffering. Fish stocks were in decline.

Mr. Mulroney claims that his biggest and proudest achievement was the Canada-U.S. air quality agreement, which finally broke the back of acid rain. This achievement was not about virtue signalling. It was about achieving real, measurable results. It took real effort. It took co-operation with our neighbours. It took political will and stamina. It took the common-sense approach that Conservatives prefer.

We understand that global climate change is in fact global. We need to work with our allies, our trading partners and all peoples on this planet, as we did with the acid rain agreement.

Take plastics, for example. With the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in the bill we are talking about today, plastic manufactured items would be listed as toxic. We knew this was coming, and here is what our Conservative Party campaign platform from last year contained: “To meaningfully contribute to tackling ocean plastic, we must recognize that plastic is a global problem”. Further on, our platform said, “The current government’s approach has been heavy on slogans but light on action. Declaring plastics ‘toxic’ isn’t helping our environment but is driving jobs out of Canada.” Again, this is common sense, not the flash and bang that we learned in a high school drama class. Let us get down and do the work.

The same goes for the Liberal Party's carbon tax, which ignores the international threats to our global environment. The Liberals want Canada to produce less carbon, so their solutions is to leave our natural resources in the ground and let other countries rack up carbon debits, to produce less natural gas and let Russia fill the void in Europe and to produce less oil and make Saudi Arabia and Venezuela happy.

It would be one thing if the Liberals' version of a price on pollution actually had the desired effect, but despite a lot of pious talk on emission reductions, Canada is falling further behind. Now the Liberals are going to triple the carbon tax. How high does it have to go before we will actually start to see our emissions come down? Maybe in a few years' time we are going to see what effect the tripling had. Maybe it is going to have to be tripled again after that. Canada is a big and cold country. We are going to consume energy just to survive and operate.

More and more people, admittedly, live in urban ridings and can take public transit, like those in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, where I am very happy to say the squeaky wheel got the grease and we got a commitment that the SkyTrain will come to Langley. However, many people living in rural areas simply do not have that choice. Ask a family in rural B.C. if they will pull their kids out of hockey because the price of gas is too high. Of course they will not. They will take the pickup truck, see the price at the pumps and be reminded why they are so irritated by the federal government. Then they will drive the 100 kilometres to a hockey tournament. This is what we do. This is how we live.

I want to end on a positive note. I will be supporting this draft bill, not because I support the government's failed environmental program but because the bill would streamline the administration of an important part of the federal government's work, namely the management of risks and hazards in our natural environment. We all want a healthy environment, and the Conservatives like the idea of things being managed in the most efficient way possible. This modest bill is a step in the right direction.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we will continue to invest to stop illegal gun traffickers. That is why I was in Montreal this past summer to announce a $40-million transfer to put towards creating a prevention strategy to end gang violence on the street.

We will work with the Bloc Québécois to get Bill C-21 passed, because it is necessary.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we have a plan to address the problem at the border. Our Bill C‑21 increases penalties for criminals and gives law enforcement new tools. We will also work with the Province of Quebec by transferring federal funds.

Finally, we have a very good partnership with the United States to disrupt criminal networks and stop illegal gun traffickers.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of this government's work and the announcement last Friday that, for the first time, a national handgun freeze is being introduced. This is a very good thing and a significant step in the right direction.

I want to thank my colleague for her co‑operation on Bill C-21. As for borders, we will continue to invest in adding resources to stop illegal weapons trafficking.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been serious about protecting Canadians since we got elected. Our number one priority is to keep Canadians safe, and that is why we have introduced common sense firearms legislation, such Bill C-71 and Bill C-21, which is at committee right now. These would keep Canadians safe. These measures are supported by Canadians, and we hope that the hon. members across the way will support us in this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the safety of Canadians is our number one priority. We support victims, and we are working with them precisely to make the system safer. With Bill C-21, we are increasing penalties for crimes related to gang activity and gun smuggling.

We are strengthening the ban on firearms, which are designed solely to kill people. That is what we are doing and what needs to be done to make Canada safer.

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

Mr. Speaker, too many Canadians have been hurt by gun violence and our government ran on the promise to redouble Canada's efforts to tackle this issue. We always put the safety of Canadians as our number one priority. That plan includes banning and buying back assault rifles, freezing the national handgun market and raising sentences for gun smugglers. My hope is that the hon. member across the aisle will support Bill C-21 at committee and allow us to keep Canadians safer.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. We have to end this cycle. That is why we will continue to make investments in collaboration with Quebec, including $40 million to help police services, with $18 million going to prevent gun-related violence in Montreal.

We have to go even further by passing Bill C‑21, which seeks to provide more resources. We will do this work in collaboration with the Bloc Québécois.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, our thoughts are with the victims' families. This is a very difficult time.

Over the past year, we have invested $321 million to strengthen the integrity of our border. That is exactly why we have made so much progress going after criminals attempting to import illegal firearms. This is an issue with a lot of challenges.

We will move forward with our plan, Bill C‑21, which will give the police more tools and increase the penalties for those involved in organized crime. We need to pass this bill as soon as possible.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a Quebecker, I am a Montrealer, and I am aware of what is happening in Montreal, both in my riding as well as in other ridings in Montreal.

Our goal with Bill C-5 is to increase resources to deal with serious crimes, which will always have serious consequences. With Bill C-21, we are increasing the maximum penalties for firearms offences.

We are moving in the right direction to get tough on the crimes that deserve it.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I hope the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-21. With this bill, we are going to give the police more tools that will help them fight organized crime so we can strengthen our borders and better protect our communities. That is what we plan to do, together with Quebec.

Bill C-21

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is bringing forward firearms legislation that will impact lawful gun owners and not do nearly enough to address gun crime. The arbitrary handgun ban in Bill C-21 will do nothing to stop gun smuggling, nor will it prevent gang violence.

However, there are some measures of this bill the Conservatives support, such as the provision to keep firearms out of the hands of those who have committed domestic abuse. Despite the Conservatives' efforts to fast-track these pieces of the legislation, the NDP-Liberal coalition teamed up to block it, which I believe revealed their goals to be political rather than practical.

On this side of the House, our approach will always be to stand up for common sense measures to ensure that Canadians are safe and that guns are out of the hands of our criminals, instead of the soft-on-crime approach from the government.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

Interruption to Proceedings

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning last night's crash of the hybrid Parliament system. I was working in my Confederation Building office here in the precinct for the House of Commons, but could not log into the Zoom portion of the House's proceedings last night. We were discussing Bill C-21, the government's cynical approach to gun control, which was to be followed by Bill C-28, a response to the Supreme Court's decision that relieved extremely intoxicated criminals of taking responsibility for their crimes. These are both issues that many of my constituents are very passionate about, and I wanted to be present for the debates.

Several colleagues also tried to access the video conference for the sitting, but were unsuccessful, I was told. I also understand that a meeting of the very important Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, the committee looking into the government's choice to declare a national emergency over this winter's truck protest in Ottawa, had to be abandoned because of these technical failures.

Beyond the obvious inconvenience and embarrassment of the hybrid system, which incredibly the government House leader will be asking later today to be renewed for another year, this incident represents broadly, I believe, a breach of the privilege to be able to represent my constituents. Under the House order of November 25, 2021, which reinstituted hybrid arrangements after last year's election, “members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by video conference”. It states “may participate”. There is no caveat or qualification to that. There is nothing that says it is only applicable when all the technology lines are up.

As much as I may think the hybrid Parliament should be scrapped, the House has agreed to those arrangements until at least tomorrow, so I sought to exercise my right to participate remotely from my parliamentary office, yet I simply could not.

While I acknowledge that the House suspended last evening shortly after the connectivity problems were flagged, which was appropriate, the way the House adjourned was not, however. According to the records of the House, the sitting resumed at 8:54 last evening when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader then sought unanimous consent for the House to adjourn. The chair then canvassed the House in the usual manner and found there was agreement for the motion. Since I was trying to attend remotely, but with a technical range that prevented me from doing so, I was unable to present for that vote. That too is a breach of my privileges.

I have since come to understand that there had been a consensus of party representatives to reconvene the House for the purpose of adjourning when it became obvious that technical issues could not be resolved prior to midnight. That said, I understand that my House leader's office had been assured by the government House leader's office that a minister of the Crown would be proposing the adjournment of the House. That is a critical point in these circumstances. Last night's sitting was an extended sitting under the House order of May 2, better known as Motion No. 11, which permits a cabinet minister to move an adjournment motion on a point of order, which is deemed adopted upon being moved. There would have been no vote and no opportunity to object. The NDP-Liberal agreement on Motion No. 11 already stripped me of those rights.

Had any of the 39 ministers of the Crown been here to manage the Business of the House, the House could have properly adjourned early under the Liberals' ruthless Motion No. 11, but they did not even manage that correctly. Instead, there was a vote and I was not able to be present for it. Your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have found several prima facie cases of privilege concerning the inability of a member to reach the House, especially when there is a vote.

Mr. Speaker Regan put it well on April 6, 2017, at page 10,246 of the Debates:

The importance of the matter of members' access to the precinct, particularly when there are votes for members to attend, cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be tolerated.

He cited favourably the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 2004, in relation to security arrangements on Parliament Hill for the visit of an American president:

The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.

Those cases concerned physical obstruction.

Page 111 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us, “A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means.” This new hybrid world obviously presents entirely new considerations that had not even been contemplated when those previous cases arose or when our procedural authorities were written. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 112, continues, “It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction [or] interference”.

That said, Mr. Speaker, I know that you, yourself, have been seized with considering just how privilege intersects with the virtual component of our proceedings from the very beginning. When the procedure and House affairs committee first began studying these issues in the earliest weeks of the pandemic, you testified on April 21, 2020, saying, at page five of the evidence, “By not having the connectivity or by having any issues, that could be an issue down the road.”

Later you added, at page 10, with particular relevance to my situation last night, “Allowing individuals to vote is the heart of our system, and it's the base of parliamentary privilege.” You reinforced this point in your July 6, 2020, appearance before the same committee by commenting, at page six of the evidence, “It is a member's privilege to vote, and we don't want the member to lose that privilege or not be able to access it.”

The issue goes much deeper than just attending votes. I could not attend any of the virtual sitting. A predecessor of yours, Peter Milliken, bluntly made the point about connection failures to the procedure and House affairs committee on April 23, 2020, at page 19 of the evidence. He said, “It would be a matter of privilege if they couldn't get into it.”

Taking the evidence the committee heard in the spring and summer of 2020, it presented two reports which helped form the structure of the hybrid system which has evolved here. Its views on these issues are equally clear.

In its fifth report presented in May 2020, the committee wrote at page 31, “It is essential that any modifications to the procedures and practices of the House made in response to the COVID-19 outbreak fully respect the rights possessed by members under parliamentary privilege.” It continues, “Further, in the exercise of the rights accorded by parliamentary privilege, members have the right to full and equal participation in parliamentary proceedings.” Last night, I did not have full and equal participation in parliamentary proceedings.

In its seventh report, which was presented in July 2020, at page 55, the committee recommended:

That the virtual or hybrid parliament replicate the rules and customs of the House as closely as possible...in order to fully ensure the democratic role of Parliament (deliberation, accountability and decision-making), as well as the parliamentary rights and privileges of members.

Further in the report, at page 60, the committee recommended, “That members participating virtually in any proceedings of the House of Commons enjoy and exercise the same parliamentary privileges that apply to members physically present.” I was incapable of exercising the same rights and privileges as my colleagues inside the chamber last evening when the Chair canvassed the House on the parliamentary secretary's unanimous consent motion.

As for the causes of the outage last night, I would submit that identifying the origins and motivations, if any, if either can even be identified, is immaterial to this question of privilege.

First, and most important, House business was conducted in defiance of the order adopted on November 25, 2021, denying me the opportunity to participate and vote, which is in breach of parliamentary privilege.

Second, that is a matter that a committee of the House, with a privilege reference, can determine. I will quote Mr. Speaker Milliken from October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of the debates, who said:

There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House.

Third, even if the source of last night's technical difficulties can be readily pinpointed, I would refer you to the ruling of your predecessor, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, on March 6, 2012, at page 5,834 of the debates, where he found a prima facie case of privilege in connection with the online hacker collective Anonymous.

I have long thought that we need to get back to traditional in-person sittings of the House. Yesterday's situation is just the latest example of why it is so important.

Though I recognize I am straying into debate on Motion No. 19, which is on today's schedule, the point remains that something serious happened last night. It was something that rose to the level of a breach of privilege, and a committee needs to get to the bottom of it. Should you agree, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Bill C-21—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that we will continue to have at least five more hours of debate on Bill C-21. Then it will go to committee, where I know there will be a very extensive, thorough and comprehensive study of Bill C-21. This is a good bill. It has the broad support of Canadians across a wide array of constituencies.

We embrace the idea of debating, and passing, this bill so we can better protect communities from the scourge of gun violence.

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

Madam Speaker, in short, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. colleague and the observation he makes that Bill C-21 is vitally important to Canadians, because it seeks to address the increase of gun violence, which has been statistically studied by StatsCan and other individuals over the past decade or so.

We have seen gun crime go up. We have seen handgun crime, specifically, go up. We have seen intimate-partner violence and gender-based violence go up in connection with the presence of guns. Rather than being able to advance the bill in this chamber, we have seen Conservatives partake in filibustering, which is why we have brought forward this time allocation motion. It does not stop debate. Of course, this bill will continue to be studied by the committee so we can better protect Canadians from the scourge of gun violence.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is saying, on the one hand, from his mouth to this chamber, that the Conservatives are prepared to work on certain elements of the bill and then, earlier this morning, we heard the House leader for the Conservative Party of Canada saying there is nothing in this bill that would protect Canadians. It is for that colleague to reconcile that logical inconsistency. Canadians expect better.

My hon. colleague, as a very accomplished, very intelligent individual member in this chamber, knows full well that the debate of Bill C-21 will continue at committee, where, of course, we embrace the exchange of ideas and potential improvements and amendments to the bill so we can better protect Canadians from the scourge of gun violence. I would urge the member to vote in support of this motion so that we can continue debate at committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know why. I wish Canadians could get into the heads of some of the tactics that we have seen here in this chamber. We embrace the idea of having a very vigorous debate about how to better protect our communities from gun violence, but, instead, we saw on the first day that was scheduled for Bill C-21 that Conservatives filibustered and we have seen similar tactics at committee.

As my hon. colleague the leader for the NDP in this chamber pointed out, it is not just on the matters related to public safety. It is on matters related to creating jobs, improving the economy, dealing with climate change and dealing with priorities related to Health Canada. I do want to take a moment to thank the New Democrats for their efforts at making this chamber work, which is what the vast majority of Canadians are entitled to expect from us, especially on matters related to public safety.

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

Madam Speaker, I am all too happy to answer my hon. colleague's question. Among other branches, of course we are in the midst of consulting with law enforcement at the federal level with the RCMP. However, we saw the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents the most senior levels and executive levels of law enforcement, say that Bill C-21 would be a step in the right direction toward better protecting our communities. Of course, that in no way diminishes the fact that we need to debate the bill and study the bill.

The problem with my hon. colleague's position is that her party has stood in the way of debate. It is her party that is standing in the way of the free speech that should be exercised in studying the bill.

We want to pass the bill so we can deal with gun violence and better protect our communities. I would hope that my colleague would embrace that effort.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for putting his finger precisely on the problem in his chamber, which is that there is one party, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada, that continues to obstruct on public safety, the economy, health and the environment. Rather than embracing the debate, which is the hallmark of our democracy in this chamber, what we see instead is relentless tactics to filibuster and postpone debate.

What we have before us is a bill that would help us advance the fight against gun violence. I would certainly urge the Conservatives to embrace the opportunities that would manifest in the committee stage, where we could look at Bill C-21 and hopefully find some common ground on addressing handgun violence, addressing organized crime, and addressing the connections between domestic abuse and gun violence. That debate will continue there.

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

Madam Speaker, it is not a question of whether we are for or against Bill C-21. We know that the bill is not perfect, but it is important.

This is about how the Liberal government has managed its legislative agenda. To be frank, honest and sincere, it has been a complete disaster. I have never seen a legislative agenda managed like this. We are meeting again today and we will likely sit until late on Thursday because we do not have the right people on that side of the House to manage the legislative agenda effectively. It is not the opposition's fault. It is not the fault of the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois or the NDP. It is the government's fault. They keep imposing closure because they are unable to manage their legislative agenda properly.

The fact that we have gotten to this point, today, is serious. The government could have tabled its notice of motion on the weekend, but what we are seeing here is the government's inefficiency across all departments and in managing the legislative agenda.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I have personal respect for my colleague. He knows that, and I would like to think we reciprocate that. Unfortunately, I do not respect his position on this particular motion.

The reason why we are taking this step is betrayed by the way in which he has characterized the bill, which is that Bill C-21 would not be helpful in reducing gun violence. That is categorically untrue. In particular, I would point his attention to the fact that the bill, among other things, would raise maximum sentences against illegal gun smugglers. He seems not to take any particular note of that. He also does not address the fact that it was his party, sadly, that sought to filibuster this debate, consistent with the posture that the Conservative Party has taken on any number of important questions and matters of priority for Canadians, whether it is on the economy, on health or on the environment. Conservatives are always blocking debate. We want to advance debate.

This debate will now move to committee, where there will be more study of Bill C-21, which would help ensure that we protect Canadians.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are seeing the hammer drop. It is on Bill C-21 this time, which further strengthens our resolve. You and I are unfortunate to have a front row seat to the further decline in democracy in this place and another attack on the institution of Parliament.

There has been three hours and 24 minutes of debate on this bill, which is a very substantive bill. Just last week, the Conservatives made an offer to the government: split the bill so we can work on portions of it that we can support, such as domestic violence and other matters within the bill. That was rejected by the government.

This bill would do nothing to solve gun and gang criminal activity in this country. This past weekend there were seven shootings in Liberal-held ridings just in Toronto. Instead of dealing with the situation, what the Liberals are doing is further traumatizing, stigmatizing and dividing Canadians through a bill by not offering to work and do the right thing.

My question for the minister is this. Is it true that, for the purposes of further dividing, stigmatizing and wedging, and using this bill as a politicized weapon, the Liberals have earmarked almost $1 million for an ad campaign in the summer to target opposition parties that are looking to better this bill as opposed to oppose it?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C‑21—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had actually read Bill C-21, she would see that we are taking on organized crime head-on by raising maximum sentences for illegal gun smugglers. She would see that we are addressing the alarming concerns around handgun violence by introducing a national handgun freeze. She would see that we are also addressing the alarming trend around the connection between intimate partner violence and guns by the introduction of red flag protocols.

The only thing the Conservatives can offer is making AR-15 assault-style rifles legal again. They should come to this chamber with more ideas.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by echoing the comments of thanks by the opposition House leader. To all those who serve the House and for everything they have done, particularly over the last year, I offer our deep and sincere thanks. The opposition House leader rightly named all those we rely on to do the jobs on a day-to-day basis that we do in serving Canadians.

We will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act this afternoon. Tomorrow, it is our intention to call Bill C-11 on online streaming at report stage.

On Monday, we will be returning to the second reading debate of Bill C-21 respecting firearms. In the afternoon, we will go back to Bill C-11 for debate at third reading. We will also focus on finding a way to expedite the bill currently on notice concerning the self-induced extreme intoxication defence standing in the name of the Minister of Justice.

Finally, we have had discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 25, 2021, with regard to the participation in the proceedings of the House and its committees, the provisions related to the COVID-19 vaccination be suspended beginning on Monday, June 20, 2022.

Firearms

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, gun violence is a reality in every community. My riding of Parkdale—High Park is no exception. As my staff have heard repeatedly from my constituents, we must do everything in our power to combat gun violence.

To date, we have banned assault-style weapons. We have cracked down on illegal trafficking. We have committed $250 million to address gang violence.

With Bill C-21 we are going further. We are implementing a national freeze on the sale, purchase, transfer and importation of handguns. We are responding to the pleas of women who are victims of intimate partner violence, which often turns lethal simply because of the presence of handguns in the home. We are responding to pleas of racialized and religious minorities, who have asked that red flag laws, which enable firearms to be removed by court order, protect the anonymity of those targeted by hate. We are responding to the pleas of mental health advocates, who contend, rightly, that handguns in Canadian homes result in increased deaths by suicide.

The only pleas we are ignoring are those of the gun lobby, who would criticize us for working to keep Canadians safe.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, I would much prefer to be in Ottawa making these comments, but it is nice that we have the hybrid. It enables me to speak on the floor of the House while I am here in Winnipeg.

We are in an interesting debate in regard to Bill C-14. I am not necessarily surprised that we would see an amendment at this stage. One of the things that I have found over the past number of months is that, at times, we get legislation that one would naturally think would flow through the House of Commons: There would be relatively minimal debate, and we would get it through second reading and into committee.

I do not see this as controversial legislation. I am not exactly sure where the Bloc actually falls on the legislation. I would hope that it would support the province of Quebec getting a guaranteed number of seats, but at the end of the day, I like to think that this is the type of legislation that should ultimately pass through.

Was it necessary, for example, for us to have an amendment? I do not think it was for a report stage amendment. I think that when we get relatively uncontroversial legislation, where it appears that everyone is going to be voting in favour, I would have rather seen a debate on something like, let us say, Bill C-21 and the issue of guns and the safety of Canadians, which is top of mind for a lot of people.

True to form, what I have found is that, whether it is good, rather uncontroversial legislation such as Bill C-14 or if it is controversial or potentially controversial legislation, the Conservatives have one approach in dealing with the government's agenda and that is to prevent it from ultimately passing.

Having said that, I want to recognize a number of points in regard to Bill C-14. Having had the opportunity to speak on the legislation in the past, I want to be very specific on a few things.

One is the need for the legislation. I think it important that we recognize, as has been pointed out, that shifts take place in Canada's population for a wide variety of reasons. One could talk about things such as job opportunities, transfers, the allure of another area, or just people wanting to move to a warmer climate. In my case, they want to come to a nice, cool climate. People change their ridings.

Immigration is such a huge factor. Over the years, Canada continues to grow in good part because of immigration to our country. We are very dependent on immigration. Our birth rate is going down. As we grow as a nation overall, there is natural population shifting that occurs. It comes also in the form of immigration.

As a result, every 10 years, there is an obligation through an independent mechanism, and I want to emphasize that it really is an independent mechanism, that ensures that the ridings reflect the changes we have seen based on census material.

No one was surprised at all that we got a report this year. It was anticipated that we would get a report 10 years after we received the last report.

Going forward, every decade we will continue to receive recommendations from Elections Canada, through the commission, as to the need to change boundaries and possibly add constituencies or do some shifting.

That is, in essence, why we have the legislation today. It is because of the change in populations. In particular, for Quebec, there is a need for us to establish a floor, a minimum number of seats, for the province.

Doing it this way prevents us from having to do a constitutional change, where there is a 7/50 formula in order to enact a change. It addresses, for the most part, the biggest concerns that members of Parliament, on all sides of the issue, have as we recognize how important it is that the province of Quebec not lose any seats. I suspect that is the reason why the legislation would ultimately pass, hopefully unanimously, in the House.

Back in November, there was the establishment of these three-member commissions. We have a national commission. The commission establishes individual commissions of three people in a province, and through those commissions they all have a responsibility. That was done in November of last year, I believe. Those commissions then all have a responsibility to develop the new boundaries, whatever they might look like. They sit around, look at the numbers and the maps and try to provide new boundaries that we could be running the next federal election on.

Each commission operates independently. Manitoba, for example, has a three-member commission, and it operates independently of other aspects of Elections Canada, of political entities and of different stakeholders, such as community members and so forth. It is important to emphasize that it is, in fact, independent.

In developing those boundaries, the commission is tasked with a timeline. That timeline is quickly approaching, and the commissions need to provide a draft of the boundaries. One could be very concerned in regard to the dragging out of Bill C-14. The people who are paying the price for the House of Commons dragging its feet on the passage of this legislation are the people of Quebec. We know we want to see that minimum number of seats for the province of Quebec, and we have consistently said that from day one, as members will recall, when the national commission initially made the recommendation. It was an immediate response that came from not only my Quebec colleagues but from the caucus as a whole: Under no circumstances could we allow the province of Quebec not to have the 78 seats.

Until this legislation passes, that three-member commission in the province of Quebec has its hands tied, at least in good part, as other commissions continue to move forward with drafting boundaries, because the boundaries will change within different provinces. There will be tweaks in the city of Winnipeg, whether Winnipeg North grows more to the north or more in the inner city. This is something I wait for with bated breath, in hopes that we see some changes that the community will in fact support.

Once that draft is finished, the commission has to make it public. Once it is made public, it has to have public hearings that must take place before the end of October, because by mid-December the report has to be finalized.

That is why it is critically important that we pass this legislation. It is so the commission in the province of Quebec can finalize a draft so that it can go to the public, and in turn the public can provide its input so the commission can then provide that final draft by the end of the year.

It is an independent process, and that is why I am supporting Bill C-14. I hope all members would support its quick passage. I see my time has—

Criminal Code

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that Bill C-21 has been introduced and very soon we could be dealing with the issues of firearms.

As I indicated earlier, anyone who uses firearms in any kind of circumstances should receive much more of a penalty, not less.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I think that is a question we ask ourselves over and over again: Why do they always mix the good in with the bad? It was something that I talked about in my speech earlier.

It is just like with Bill C-21. There are aspects of that bill that we as Conservatives strongly believe are good and we would like to have further discussion on. I think we can see ourselves supporting those ideas. Then again, the Liberals put aspects in there that are absolutely not palatable which we will need to debate further and come to a better resolution. It is disappointing that two separate ideas and concepts are put into the same bill, because it makes it unsupportable.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House and to speak to legislation.

I will start by making the point that I find the intent behind this bill, at least expressed by the Prime Minister, to be troubling. I will admit it is rare that I find merit in any legislation put forward by the Liberal government. However, in this case, as we get into the conversation about drugs, rather than exclusively treating simple drug possession as a criminal issue, we need to also recognize it as a health issue. There is some merit in that. That is where we are as a party, and I think that is where we are as a country, so that is the conversation we should be having. The problem is that, as usual, the Liberal government has taken a nugget of common sense and buried it so deeply into a larger piece of legislation that is so rife with contradictions and virtue signalling that, unfortunately, that semblance of a good idea gets lost.

We saw this just last week when Conservatives asked the government to break Bill C-21, which I also look forward to speaking to, into two bills. We asked that the government do this because we agreed with parts of the bill as they appeared to have merit and we thought they were a good idea. It is always a good idea to protect women and children and that is something everyone in this House can get behind. We asked, in good faith, if the government would be willing to split the bill so we could vote in favour of the good part that we agreed on and expedite the passage of that bill, while continuing to debate the ideas that we did not agree with. The government refused. It is the all-or-nothing approach that the Liberals keep taking that is behind their inability to present coherent legislation that we can all agree on.

We have a Prime Minister who is so convinced that he knows better than anyone else, better than this House and better than Canadians, that he takes these big legislative swings and misses. Because he did not bring this House along with him, he did not bring the country along with him. From what I have been reading in the news of late, it sounds like he has lost any interest in bringing his own party along with him. It is just the Prime Minister out there on his own, doing his own thing and not particularly concerned about the consequences because he knows best. He is not concerned about the consequences because, if we are honest, when has the Prime Minister ever been accountable for his actions? He would not know a consequence if it jumped up and bit him somewhere unparliamentary.

In fact, the only time the Prime Minister expresses any concern for outcomes is when his own political fate may be jeopardized. Then he cares. High inflation does not affect him. When was the last time the PM set foot in a grocery store, other than, of course, for a quick photo op? Regarding house prices, let us just say he has options. He is in Rideau Cottage while the family is at the lake. There are a mere 38 rooms between them all, but I hear they are getting by, unlike many Canadians. Regarding gas prices, he is still jetting around the globe to take pictures and lecture people about emissions, so obviously, the price of gas does not affect him. With respect to rising crime rates and gang violence, he has never had to live in downtown Winnipeg or Thompson or Thunder Bay. Let him live in a rooming house on Magnus Avenue or Regent Park and see what he says then, but he does not and he will not. He would not even visit those neighbourhoods.

It should not come as any surprise to anyone that we keep getting this out-of-touch legislation. It was the Prime Minister's father who stated that the government has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. I find it quite ironic that the government wants to be not just in the bedroom, but in every room, every device and every thought. There is no aspect of Canadian life that the Liberals do not feel they need to control. Despite that, they are still so out of touch with the reality of everyday Canadians. It is actually very sad.

I wonder if the government spent a little less time pushing narratives and virtue signalling and a little more time actually listening to Canadians, it would not be better off. Perhaps then we could get legislation that deals with the root causes of these problems, rather than just the symptoms.

Let us take a look at this bill, because this bill is a great example of what I am talking about. It gives great insight into the Liberal mentality, at least that of the PM and his cabinet and the inconsistency of their government's reasoning. Why put this bill forward? The Prime Minister was clear when he spoke in the House last week. He said our previous Conservative government's tough-on-crime agenda was racist. The PM claims our attempts to crack down on serious crime and put victims first was really just a cover to discriminate and put Black and indigenous Canadians in jail. That assertion is as false as it is insulting as it is ridiculous.

Here is our position. If someone commits a crime in Canada and is convicted of that crime, that person should be held accountable for that crime, period. Race does not come into play. The law is colour blind. I wish the government would be intellectually honest enough to try to stop bringing race into every equation, and that it would stop with the identity politics and stop dividing Canadians.

People who are convicted by a court of law and sent to jail are not in that position because they are victims. They are in that position because they are criminals. They have victimized another person. That is not to say that they themselves were not victimized somewhere along the road. They probably were, and that needs to be part of this discussion. However, being the victim of a crime does not entitle someone to commit crimes. However, we know that hurt people hurt people, and that is the bigger conversation.

Do we need to have discussions surrounding the extenuating circumstances that might have contributed to that choice? Absolutely, we do. We need to address poverty. We need to address housing, the cost of living, education and opportunities. We need to discuss the role of the entertainment industry and media. We need to discuss the role of parents, or in too many cases, the lack of parental involvement that leads to young people being out on the streets.

There is a lot we need to talk about, but at the end of the day, those external circumstances aside, that person standing before the judge made a choice. They did not make that choice because of the colour of their skin, and to insinuate they did is the very definition of racism. The ability to make choices between right and wrong has nothing to do with skin colour.

The government can throw around all the talking points about intersectionality it wants, but it does not change the fact that somewhere in that situation somebody made a choice, and choices have consequences. I know Black Canadians, white Canadians, Asian Canadians and indigenous Canadians, many of whom have been through difficult times and circumstances, had terrible things happen to them and had their backs up against the wall, and they did not resort to crime. In fact, too often, what we are seeing happen is that in those same racialized communities that a disproportionate number of offenders come from, we also see a disproportionate number of victims.

I look at this legislation, and on the face of it I can only see one message the government is trying to send: that it has actually come to believe that racialized Canadians somehow lack the ability to choose between right and wrong. It is ridiculous and it is insulting. I am not about to speak for those racialized communities, but if it were me, I would find this legislation incredibly insulting, because rather than empower racialized Canadians and fight racism, this bill enshrines a racism of lowered expectations, one that will harm the very communities the Liberals actually genuinely want to help.

That is the first big inconsistency, and here is the second: At the same time the government is lowering penalties for serious offenders, as it has done before, it is once again targeting law-abiding Canadians. The government will not address illegal guns flooding across our border, but it will go after farmers. It will not deal with illegal border crossers flooding into Canada, but try to cross the border without completing the ArriveCAN app. People can burn down churches, and the Prime Minister says that he understands their anger, but try parking a truck in downtown Ottawa.

That is how backwards the Liberal mentality is. If someone commits a serious crime, they are a victim, but if they obey the law, they are clearly a danger to society. It is backwards. It is not progressive. It is regressive.

There is one more thing. We started by talking about drugs. I would like to end there as well.

The government touts the fact that 75% of mandatory minimum prosecutions were for drug offences. What it does not and will not tell us is that 89% of those cases were for drug trafficking. It was not for personal use or simple possession. It was for dealing. I am fine if we want to shift to diversion programs and treatment for simple possession for those who are addicted, as addiction is a medical issue, but I am not okay with diversion programs for those who peddle this poison to our kids.

All we need to do is look at downtown Winnipeg or Vancouver to see the deadly consequences of drug use. I believe that those who are instrumental in causing the chemical carnage should not have the option of house arrest, that they should go to jail, yet still there are those in the government and in this House who would say to take away penalties, legalize drugs and remove the stigma. For those who do that here, we have another inconsistency and another illogical gap, because saying that eliminating penalties and legalizing drugs will help fix drug addiction is like trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline. It would not be laughable if it were not so true.

Once again, we have an example of legislation that addresses the symptoms, but fails to address the root causes of the problem. It is a backward approach that would harm the very people it claims to want to help.

This is typical of the government's failed approach. That is why I will be voting against Bill C-5.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. I certainly have a lot of respect for his experience.

From his experience as a prosecutor, what kind of message does he think it sends to criminals, as well as to the victims and their families, when we have bills like Bill C-21, which attacks law-abiding firearms owners, and Bill C-5, which would lessen mandatory sentencing? What kind of message is this sending to Canadians, to victims and their families, and also to criminals?

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for all of his hard work and leadership on keeping our communities safe. As he knows, and all members know, we have introduced Bill C-21, which, among other things, would introduce a national handgun freeze and would take on, yes, organized crime by raising maximum sentences for illegal traffickers and would reverse the alarming trend around the connection between domestic violence and guns. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to work with all members and yes, maybe, who knows, the Conservatives too. We live in hope, so that we can better protect all Canadians from the scourge of gun violence.

Government Policies

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, airports are in chaos. The passport office is snowed under. Inflation is out of control. Ministers are misleading Parliament. The government's current priorities are an incoherent mess.

Bill C-5 would drop sentencing requirements on violent offenders and drug traffickers and open the door for sex offenders to serve community sentences near their victims. Bill C-21 pretends to address gun violence, but literally only affects people who obey Canada's existing strict firearms laws. Bill C-19 would remove any pretense of fiscal control from the undisciplined and unserious government. Bill C-11 is a bill that would give the CRTC the power to control what Canadians find and post on the Internet. None of these bills would do anything to fix any of Canada's serious problems.

If these are the government's priorities for the next two weeks, I suggest it quit now and spend the summer coming up with a real agenda to help Canadians.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. At the outset, I will note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Provencher.

Believe it or not, this is an area that is close to my heart as somebody who previously taught a sentencing class and somebody who worked in the criminal justice system, both in federal corrections as a defence lawyer and then as a Crown prosecutor. This is an area that I find a great deal of interest in. I have heard different perspectives, some more compelling than others today. What I find noteworthy is that most parliamentarians want to get to the same place when it comes to this debate. The question is: how do we get there?

I was quite struck by some of the commentary that we have heard today because it was talking about where we want to be. The question, in my view, is whether this bill actually gets us there. If we look at the issue, I believe everybody in the House would resoundingly and unanimously say that they want gun crime to go down. There is no doubt about it. Nobody wants to see any more people shot, especially innocent civilians caught in the proverbial crossfire. The question then is whether this is the right mechanism to do so. I note that not once does the word “victim” appear in Bill C-5 or Bill C-21.

Gun crime, in my view, and I think in the view of a lot of people in the House, is out of control. No one here wants to see more gun crime. We have two different approaches in Bill C-5 and Bill C-21. Bill C-5, with the elimination of mandatory minimums, has been a failed approach. I will note here something that is not brought up very often. The reality is that most mandatory minimums, when it comes to gun crimes, were actually struck down.

When we talk about a failed approach, if the approach failed, it has most recently been since the time that the mandatory minimums were struck down. We have essentially been operating in a time where mandatory minimums have been struck down for most gun crimes, but not for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm or reckless discharge. Those minimums remain, but under section 95, for instance, that was struck down in the R. v. Nur decision many years ago. It is not as though we are talking about statistics as of last week, last month or last year when mandatory minimums were in effect. Most mandatory minimums have been struck down.

I want to now turn to what the parliamentary secretary said. When we look at the issue of overrepresentation, there will be no issue from me. I remember being a 22-year-old and a 23-year-old going to work in federal corrections for the first time and noting the overrepresentation of indigenous people, for instance, in the justice system. At that time, it was about six to one in terms of overrepresentation, so it was very substantial. As a young man, it was something that I had to learn about and, frankly, the decisions I made had to address. That is something I am quite proud of.

It is also something I had to address as a prosecutor. We have the R. v. Gladue decision, the Ipeelee decision, and we also have subsection 718.2(e), I believe, that address this specific issue of overrepresentation. I was bound by those ethical precepts to address Gladue considerations in sentencing, and I always took great pride in putting those considerations at the forefront of my decision-making.

Where the parliamentary secretary and I part company is where he notes, on behalf of the government, that we are looking at alternatives to incarceration while keeping the public safe. This argument might hold water, but for the fact that there are serious offences that are included in this bill. I am going to fast-forward to them. For reckless discharge with a firearm, section 244(1) reads that, “Every person commits an offence who discharges a firearm at a person with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, or endanger life”.

We are talking about public protection. We are talking about gun violence. We want to reduce gun violence overall, yet this provision was included in Bill C-5. This allows what I would characterize commonly as a drive-by shooting. Rather than signal we are not going to allow a community-based sentence for such a serious offence, the question should be the length of incarceration. It is paradoxical.

I asked the parliamentary secretary about this, and I cannot remember his exact response, but essentially it was that I was using rhetoric. I am not using rhetoric. I am simply pointing out that a sentencing option now exists for drive-by shooters to serve their sentence in the community. I am not sure how we get here. I just do not know how the principles of sentencing in section 718 are enhanced and put forward by conditional sentence orders for drive-by shootings.

The hon. parliamentary secretary spoke about systemic racism, and he then spoke about corrections. My point is that I have no issue with targeting racism anywhere in Canada, none whatsoever. He talked about the custody ratings scale. As someone who has completed the custody ratings scale and who previously worked in corrections, I know that, if he wants to address the custody ratings scale and the overrepresentation of people in maximum security in federal custody itself, then he should do that. We would do that by amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, not by allowing conditional sentence orders for people who commit offences such as extortion with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, or most seriously, reckless discharge or discharge with intent.

The hon. parliamentary secretary talked about Conservatives wanting to lock people up and throw away the key. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we want is a safe society with just sentencing—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his question and for the Bloc's support for Bill C-5.

Obviously, we are all concerned about gun violence, which is on the rise. That is precisely why we introduced Bill C-21, which seeks to ban the sale and importation of assault-style weapons. We will also continue with our plan for a mandatory buyback of assault-style weapons. We are tackling the proliferation of weapons across the country. We hope to have the support of the Bloc Québécois for Bill C‑21 as well.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is conflating Bill C-21 and Bill C-5. I think we need to come back to Bill C‑5, the bill we are discussing today.

As I said, we have stated our position. We agree with the introduction of diversion measures, but since this is an omnibus bill, it contains two confusing and intertwined items. We certainly have the right to ask questions about minimum sentences.

However, one thing is certain: For these reasons, especially since diversion is so important and has such positive effects, as we have seen in various countries around the world, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill. That said, as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord so aptly put it, we will do it while holding our noses.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-5, my mind is once again filled with questions and confusion.

As critic for status of women and gender equality, I have observed an uptick in the number of femicides and incidents involving gender-based violence. Like my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, whom I commend for his speech and for sharing his time with me, I wonder about the odd message the government is sending with this bill.

I will therefore address the delicate question of mandatory minimum penalties by starting with my experience in the community sector. Next, I will address the bill's shortcomings. I will end with a few suggestions for countering violence and sending a strong message to end the acrimony currently surrounding the bill and, in particular, the disinformation we have been hearing, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned.

I have a background in community work, more specifically with an alternative justice and mediation organization. I sincerely believe in restorative justice. I am entirely in agreement with the Bloc's traditional position, which mirrors Quebec's position on mandatory minimum penalties.

When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois advocates for an approach that promotes rehabilitation and crime reduction. We believe that mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, have few benefits, that they do not deter crime and that they introduce many problems, including the overrepresentation of indigenous and Black communities in prisons, as well as additional costs to the system. The Bloc Québécois is therefore more favourable to the principle of repealing certain MMPs.

However, the Bloc also believes in timing, since life is all about timing. Now is not the right time to repeal MMPs for firearms offences, seeing as a number of cities in Quebec and Canada are plagued by a rash of gun violence, mainly because of the Liberal government's inaction when it comes to border controls.

Many women's groups are particularly concerned about this and would like to see better gun control measures to help reduce the number of femicides. Repealing MMPs without doing anything to stop the illegal flow of firearms across the border sends a mixed message.

Conversely, Bill C-21 would strengthen certain maximum penalties, but we must be careful not to mix up these two bills. Although we believe that repealing MMPs for firearms possession is defensible, the proposed repeal of MMPs for certain gun crimes, including discharging a firearm with intent and armed robbery or extortion, appears to contradict the government's claim that it will maintain MMPs for certain categories of serious crime.

We need to monitor this aspect of the bill closely, as well as the possibility of maintaining MMPs for second or third offences. As the Bloc Québécois suggested, the courts could be given the power to depart from the MMPs in cases of serious crime where justified by exceptional circumstances.

I would like to clarify that the Bloc Québécois expressed support for the introduction of the principle of diversion for simple drug possession during the last election campaign and the debates on Bill C-236. Let me remind my colleagues that some of the MMPs that are to be repealed involve drug production, at a time when the opioid crisis is claiming more and more lives in Quebec and Canada.

During the last election campaign, I was approached about this topic by community groups that work with the homeless and whose street outreach workers are doing an excellent job, like those in Granby. However, the Bloc Québécois would like to point out that such a measure will be effective only if investments are made in health care, to support health care systems and community organizations. These institutions need resources so they can help people struggling with addiction and mental health issues, another subject that voters broached with me during the last election campaign.

The Bloc Québécois would like to note that we have still not gotten a response from the Liberal government on the issue of increasing health care funding to cover 35% of system costs, despite unanimous calls from Quebec and the provinces. Obviously, without that level of investment, it is hard for community organizations to meet the growing needs created by increased homelessness in municipalities like Granby. The pandemic only exacerbated the problem. Also, as critic for status of women, I see that homeless women are especially vulnerable.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois speaks for Quebec, where diversion is a well-recognized principle that has been integrated into several areas of the justice system. For example, in children's law, extrajudicial alternatives have been offered to young offenders since the 1970s thanks to Claude Castonguay's reform of the Youth Protection Act. There is also the alternative measures program for adults in indigenous communities, which allows individuals to opt for measures other than judicial proceedings.

There is the justice and mental health support program, which allows individuals who have committed a crime and are fit to stand trial to obtain a reduced sentence or, in some cases, benefit from diversion. There is also the general alternative measures program for adults, which is currently being implemented and which gives adults accused of certain crimes the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and resolve their conflict with the law in ways other than the usual judicial proceedings provided for in the Criminal Code.

For all of these reasons, I would like to salute the organization Justice alternative et médiation, for which I used to work. I would like to apologize for missing the general meeting, but I know that the organization's work on all the issues I mentioned is crucial.

Lastly, with regard to drugs, there is the Court of Quebec's addiction treatment program, which makes it possible to postpone sentencing to allow the offender to undergo court-supervised treatment for addiction. It also provides for close collaboration between the court and drug addiction resources to establish treatment methods, including therapy, rehabilitation and social integration. Unfortunately, this program is offered only in Montreal and Puvirnituq. It would be good if it could be expanded.

In short, as the previous examples show, the principle of diversion is not new in Quebec's judicial ecosystem. Quebec's Bill 32 was studied and also involved diversion. The CAQ government concentrated on securing the passage of this bill, which aims to promote the efficiency of penal justice. The bill introduced the concept of an adaptation program, which will give municipalities another option for administering statements of offence to vulnerable individuals, such as those experiencing homelessness or mental health or addiction issues.

As critic for status of women, I am always rather appalled to observe the overrepresentation of indigenous individuals in prisons and to note that the problem is more pronounced among women than men. Some 38% of women incarcerated in provincial and territorial prisons after sentencing are indigenous, while the corresponding rate of incarceration among men identifying as indigenous is 26%, so this affects far more women than men. In federal prisons, indigenous women account for 31% of offenders sentenced to prison, while indigenous men account for only 2%. These are huge numbers. Given these figures, could MMPs be contributing to increasing the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the prison system? Certain signs point to yes.

Diversion is also beneficial for individuals. It reduces the stigma associated with drug use, as well as the negative consequences of a criminal record, which are disproportionate to the crime of simple possession. One last thing I should mention is that MMPs are expensive, because they generate long-term correctional service costs and court costs. MMPs have a major social cost because the money invested in putting people in prison is not devoted to social reintegration.

In conclusion, because of my background in community work, I am sensitive to many considerations associated with this bill. One thing is certain: It should not relieve us of our responsibility as members of Parliament, especially since gun crime is an important issue, given recent events where many innocent victims were killed by guns. Although we agree with the repeal of MMPs, we should not minimize gun crime or the importance of making the public feel safe and considering better gun control measures. That will be debated in another bill. Let us focus on the bill at hand.

I can say one thing. On the one side, we have the NDP saying that this bill does not go far enough. On the other, we have the Conservatives clinging to their “tough on crime” approach. Is that the way to go? I do not know.

Then there are the Liberals, who, as I mentioned, are playing both sides of the fence, especially in the case of crimes against women. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action 32 sought to allow judges to depart from MMPs under certain circumstances, by which I mean serious crimes against women. The idea is to allow judges to decide whether getting rid of the MMP is a good idea. This is meant to send a strong message, especially in the case of serious crimes against women. The Liberals managed to do this in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation.

Once again, this bill reflects the Liberals' penchant for catch-all bills. Minimum penalties, maximum penalties, diversion: Everything is lumped together. In short, once again, the Bloc Québécois is acting like the adult in the room, trying to adopt the most well-reasoned and reasonable approach.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his stated support of Bill C-5.

I realize and acknowledge the issues around gun violence. I want to point the member to Bill C-21, which is now before the House. It does, in fact, increase the penalties for firearm-related offences. This is the type of smart criminal justice policy that we are talking about.

We are, in fact, increasing the level of penalties available to judges for those who commit a crime with firearms. At the same time, we are ensuring that increased judicial discretion happens at the lower end of the spectrum where there are other alternatives for those who may be first-time offenders and those who may not pose a risk.

I want to thank my friend for the support, but I also want to reassure him that Bill C-21 will address many of the issues he has mentioned in his speech today.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, Bill C-21 addresses the issues that my friend opposite has brought forward. Gun violence is a problem in our society. Bill C-21 addresses it in a holistic way. It imposes higher sentences when appropriate and allows judges the discretion to ensure that those who commit serious offences get serious sentences.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken extensively on systemic racism within the criminal justice system and why it is important to ensure that those who do not pose a risk do not end up in jail.

With respect to gun violence, it is a very important and real issue. My community of Scarborough—Rouge Park has dealt with this. I dealt with this when I ran a youth organization. I have buried my share of young people disproportionately in my community and it is an awfully painful process. It is one that I am still traumatized by.

What is important is that Bill C-21 addresses the issues that my friend opposite is talking about. It increases penalties for those firearm offences. It gives discretion to the judge to impose a sentence of up to 14 years, which is higher than we have right now.

What we are impressing in Bill C-5 is to make sure that those who do not pose a risk and maybe are first-time offenders are given an opportunity to get out of the criminal justice process and continue their lives.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you back in your seat.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-5, An act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which proposes to consider alternatives to incarceration in appropriate cases while reducing recidivism and keeping society safe.

I want to acknowledge that I am speaking on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

Bill C-5 is an important step forward in addressing systemic racism and discrimination. It puts forth an approach that promotes fairer sentencing outcomes for everyone, notably indigenous peoples, Black persons and members of marginalized communities who are disproportionately and negatively impacted by inflexible sentencing laws. These changes would continue to denounce and hold offenders accountable.

The bill advances three broad categories of reforms. I will speak on the specifics later on. I want to speak today about what it means to be incarcerated. I know that the Conservative approach to crime is about locking people up and throwing away the key. The reality is that many jurisdictions where this was tried have realized its innate failures. I want to note that Newt Gingrich, one of the early proponents of mandatory minimum penalties, has now recanted and suggested that mandatory minimum penalties do not work. All across the United States, this realization is coming into the public discourse.

Incarceration is not the answer to all people. There is a need for us to use incarceration only for crimes that are of a serious nature and that pose risks to individuals. We need to provide off-ramps. Systemic racism in the criminal justice system is real. While we may think that our justice system is blind, the outcomes tells us a different story. Indigenous and Black Canadians who go to prison are treated differently; that is, they are mistreated. Their lives are devalued. I would invite anyone who still doubts that to look at the latest Auditor General's report on our correctional system.

I want to give members some snippets of her findings. For example, indigenous and Black offenders faced greater barriers to safe and gradual reintegration into society than other incarcerated groups.

The process of assigning security classifications, including the use of the Custody Rating Scale, and frequent overrides of the scale by corrections staff, result in disproportionately higher numbers of indigenous and Black offenders being placed in maximum security institutions. I quote:

We noted Indigenous representation gaps among correctional officers across institutions, Black representation gaps among program and parole officers at institutions with a high number of Black offenders, and gender representation gaps among correctional officers at women’s institutions.

Indigenous and Black offenders, for example, were placed at a higher security level on admission into custody at twice the average rate of other offenders. Indigenous and Black men were placed at maximum security institutions at twice the rate of other offenders and made up 51% of maximum security placements.

The report added:

We also found that Indigenous women were placed at maximum security at more than 3 times the rate of non‑Indigenous women and made up almost 70% of maximum-security placements.

Corrections staff can override classifications, which means that once a classification is completed, corrections staff have the discretion, at times, to override them. In this case, corrections staff overrode up to 53% of minimum security placements, compared with 27% for non-indigenous women. Indigenous women were classified upwards by 53%, while the average was 27% for non-indigenous women.

For indigenous men, correctional staff overrode up to 46% of minimum security placements to higher levels compared with 33% for non-indigenous offenders. The report said:

...more Indigenous offenders remained in custody until their statutory release and were released directly into the community from higher levels of security.

This essentially means that once somebody is classified, the higher the security classification, the harder it is for them to get the programs of support necessary for them to reintegrate into society.

It also means that they serve a longer period of their sentence in custody, while those who were maybe classified at the lower levels are able to spend less time in custody and more time in bridging programs that will allow them to integrate within the community. This essentially leads to higher levels of recidivism.

For me the most profound thing about the Auditor General's report is that, for the first time, it has quantified systemic racism within our criminal justice system. As we look at reducing mandatory minimum penalties, a very important takeaway is for us to reflect on what that means. We know the offences that are the subject of Bill C-5, for which we are repealing many of the mandatory minimum penalties, directly have an impact on indigenous and Black offenders. It is so critical that we keep that in mind as we look at this bill.

I do want to talk about my personal experience working with young people in the criminal justice system. I used to run an organization called the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre back in the late 1990s, early 2000s, before going to law school. I dealt with a number of young people who were involved in the criminal justice system as young offenders and even young adult offenders. I was able to work with them for many years. I still continue to call many of those people my friends because of the relationships we built during that time.

Some of these young people were involved in violence. Some of them were involved in petty theft or other mishaps within the community. What I realized during that time was that they needed support. It is very easy for us, as a society, to incarcerate someone. It is the easiest thing we can do. The harder thing for us to do is to support young people as they redeem themselves as they come out and reintegrate into society.

One of the things I realized is that the more support that we were able to give young people, the more off-ramps we provide to those who may engage, for the first time or second time, in the criminal justice system, the better off society is in the long term. I have consistently seen, in a number of cases, these young people who have come out of the system, and they are now very active and contributing members of our society. That is not always the case, but based on the vast majority of the people I have worked with, that continues to be what I have seen.

During the deliberations at committee, we heard from a number of important stakeholders. I want to highlight the testimony of Raphael Tachie, who is the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and who obviously supports the repeal of many of the mandatory minimum penalties that are here.

He spoke about what his lived experience was as a young Black man growing up in British Columbia. He talked about the first time he was at a theatre and there was some commotion going on outside of the movie theatre. He was there on a date. He found himself, with many other young Black men, surrounded by police and essentially questioned. Luckily for him, he had a great support system that allowed him to really defend himself because he did nothing wrong.

However, the reality for many is that over-policing oftentimes leads to over-arresting and subsequent convictions because, once one is within the cycle of the criminal justice system, it often just perpetuates. The safeguards are limited.

When Mr. Tachie spoke, his words resonated with me and my personal life, considering the number of times, as someone who is racialized and who grew up in Scarborough, I have been stopped by the police. I continue to be stopped, and this is not something that unique to me. It is the same for many people who may have grown up in my community. They get randomly stopped and questioned. This happens to me even as an MP. It did not stop when I became an MP, a parliamentary secretary or the candidate for the Liberal Party. It continued.

Especially for young people, this means that oftentimes they are without the right supports, without the right legal advocacy and without parents who are able to support them, perhaps because they have multiple jobs or have jobs where they cannot take time off. It really does put young people at an enormous disadvantage.

I often reflect on what Mr. Tachie spoke about and on what my life might be like today if, during one of those half a dozen or dozen times when I had been pulled over or subjected to this type of inquiry, I had given the wrong answer or had been with the wrong people. This is the story for so many people, not only within my community of Scarborough—Rouge Park, but also in many other parts across Canada. It is so profound.

The incident that occurred with George Floyd two years ago really tells a story of the disparity we see in the U.S., but it is not unique. We know there have been a number of times in Canada where indigenous men and women have oftentimes been arbitrarily arrested or arbitrarily beaten up. We have seen where discrimination does not really stop, even with chiefs and people who have a national or local profile, because of who they are, and we see that particularly with young Black men.

In 2019, just before or around the election, I remember the current Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada came to my riding on his way to the GTA, and we were able to meet with a whole bunch of stakeholders, most of whom work with youth in our communities. The overwhelming message was that we need to ensure that mandatory minimum penalties are addressed. They have disadvantaged many indigenous and Black Canadians. It is a system that does not work. They are failed policies of the past and something we need to address. Louis March, who many members may know is the leader of the Zero Gun Violence Movement, was one of the people there. His entire life has been devoted to fighting gun violence. He profoundly stated that the system of mandatory minimum penalties does not work and asked that our government address it, so here we are.

First, we are here to repeal all MMPs for drug offences, tobacco-related offences and 13 firearm-related offences. I know that when we say we want to reduce the mandatory minimum penalties for firearms there are many in the House who may legitimately ask why we are reducing the penalties when the use of firearms is on the rise. It is a question that is very pertinent here because Bill C-21, which was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety, addresses that issue as it would increase the maximum penalty for gun-related offences from 10 to 14 years. We are saying there is a need for judicial discretion. That is what that bill would do, it would ensure judicial discretion. It would give discretion to the judge to look at the individual and the circumstances of the case and increase the penalty up to 14 years. I think that is a very important point that is sometimes missed in this debate.

Second, it would remove certain restrictions that would prevent a sentencing court from considering the imposition of conditional sentencing orders. That is a very important issue. It is important to note that our criminal justice system is an unfair system, and I have outlined the issues of systemic racism, particularly as they relate to indigenous and Black Canadians, which not only results in over-incarceration, but also unfairly misclassifies people.

What conditional sentencing orders do is allow the judge to impose conditional sentences, which may be out of custody, on individuals who do not pose a risk to society. This is a very important point again. Oftentimes it is not about giving every offender a conditional sentence. It is about smart policy that says, when we put someone in institutions, we criminalize them even further. We do not give them the right supports. We take them away from their families, and we take them away from the addiction treatment they may need. We also take them away from their responsibilities of going to work, doing work in the community, being a member of their church or being part of the local community, which would give them the support they need to get out of the criminal justice system.

It is a very smart policy. Oftentimes it is mischaracterized, but this would not be available to everyone. It would be available to those who are deemed to not pose a risk to society.

If we look at the numbers over the years, prior to many of these mandatory minimum penalties coming in, there were over 11,000 conditional sentencing orders in Canada. That number is now down to about 6,000.

I know many colleagues who are very progressive would also say that this bill does not go far enough. I would tell them that this is an important bill because it would allow conditional sentencing orders to be expanded in a very smart way, which would allow judges the judicial discretion to place individuals who do not pose a risk and allow them to pay their debt to society while allowing them to continue their lives at the same time. This is about 5,000 Canadians, as per the statistics we have seen.

The final part of this is that we are looking to encourage alternate approaches at an early stage for responding to persons in possession of illicit drugs. I know the Minister of Mental Health recently supported the call from British Columbia and allowed British Columbia to take more control over issues around drugs. We know that the right supports are essential to ensuring that addictions and mental health are supported. This bill allows that.

Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to complete my speech. I do want to emphasize that this is smart public policy. This is smart criminal justice policy. I look forward to the support of all members here.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that the situation at the border is worrisome. That is why we will continue to give the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP more resources at the border.

We are making progress. Last year, we seized a record number of guns. However, I agree that more needs to be done. That is why I hope that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-21.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member saying that the government is going to do everything it can, but that means that it has not done anything yet.

Nothing has been done to combat gun trafficking at the border. It has gotten to the point where Quebec and the indigenous police have had to step up their own patrols, without any help from the federal government. Nothing has been done in the House either. Bill C-21 does not propose anything at all to crack down on gun trafficking and organized crime.

The federal government is offering half measures at the border and half measures in the House, but Montreal has an actual problem with illegal gun trafficking and organized crime, not half a problem. When will the federal government crack down on illegal gun trafficking and organized crime?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we will work 24/7 to protect our communities, and that includes controlling the border to stop the illegal gun trade.

That is precisely why we have already transferred $46 million to the Quebec government. That is precisely why we are in a renewal process with our indigenous communities to protect our communities.

Bill C-21 is currently before the House. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will support this very important bill to protect our communities.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth on what the hon. member is saying. Bill C-21 attacks violent crime, attacks gang crime, attacks trafficking in arms and raises the maximum penalties available for certain sentences. If he is talking about repeat offenders, those offenders do not have access to minimum mandatory penalties. In fact, they go the other way. Public safety is not going to be negatively affected. In fact, it is going to be enhanced by allowing for serious offences to be treated seriously and for more flexibility at—

Criminal Code

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate this evening, and I think I will be bringing it home before we move on to the other piece of government legislation we are going to discuss.

Bill C-5 is problematic for a number of reasons, and I am going to articulate why I will not be able to support this bill. We have heard a lot of rationales presented by members on the government benches as to why this bill is compassionate, why they believe it is important that this needs to be done and why it is urgent that it be done now.

I would note that this bill was progressing through the House in its previous form in the last Parliament, and during that Parliament the Prime Minister and members of this place undertook not to call an election during the pandemic. However, politics being politics, the Prime Minister saw that the polls seemed favourable for his party's electoral fortunes, called an election and killed the bill.

Now we are back, and I guess it is urgent once more. The Liberals believe that, but it was not in the intervening period.

Let us talk about what the bill really would do. I want to address some of the arguments made in favour of it by the bill's proponents. One of those arguments is that eliminating mandatory prison time for some of these offences would help racialized Canadians and minorities who are disproportionately affected and over-represented in the justice system, so the Liberals are going to eliminate the MMPs for those individuals.

That is what they say Bill C-5 would do. In about 12 minutes we are going to debating Bill C-21, so let us talk about what Bill C-5 would do and what Bill C-21 would do.

Bill C-5 would remove the mandatory prison time for possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, so there would be no minimum. Bill C-21 would increase the maximum. Bill C-5 would remove the minimum penalty for weapons trafficking, while Bill C-21 would increase the maximum amount of time. For possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, Bill C-5 would eliminate the minimum penalty, and Bill C-21, as members guessed it, would increase the maximum penalty. The same is true for importing or exporting a weapon, knowing it is unauthorized. The bills would remove the MMP and increase the maximum.

If the contention by the government is that it would be removing the minimum penalty because the folks who are being convicted of these offences are racialized Canadians and they are disproportionately represented in the justice system, why is it that the government wants to increase the maximum penalty?

There seems to be a bit of mental gymnastics happening for the Liberals to put forward these two pieces of legislation, which we are going to be debating in the House literally minutes apart.

We have talked about the opioid crisis in recent days in this place, and we talked about it today. It is a scourge in our country. People are dying every day, and the perpetrators, the dealers of this poison, who are preying on people in all of our communities, should know that what they are doing will carry the harshest penalties in our justice system. They are not the victims.

Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and production of a schedule 1 or 2 substance. Schedule 1 and 2 include heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

I have heard conflation regarding this bill and the government's work with the Province of British Columbia to decriminalize what they call “simple possession” of those same substances. When we talk about fentanyl and carfentanil, two and a half grams is considered personal possession. That is enough to kill 1,000 people. That is 1,000 lethal doses.

Yesterday at the health committee, we heard Canada's chief public health officer say that if there is an overdose at a party or someone is carrying two and a half grams of carfentanil or fentanyl, the first step would be to administer naloxone, or Narcan. I do not know what the situation is like in British Columbia with respect to its emergency service preparedness for overdoses, but I do not know of a lot of fire or police departments or public health agencies that have 1,000 Narcan kits on hand. That is incredibly troubling.

This bill also talks about the expansion of conditional sentencing. This is where someone who is found guilty of an offence is able to serve their sentence in the community. The first thing I would draw to the attention of members in this place is bizarre, to put it gently. Someone would be eligible for conditional sentences, which means not serving their sentence in jail, if they are found guilty of prison breach. Therefore, when they break out of jail, the judge will say that it would be more appropriate for them to serve their sentence in the community. It is absurd.

To move from the absurd to the serious, I note offences such as sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for a material benefit and abduction of a person under the age of 14. Someone found guilty of these offences would be eligible to serve their sentence in the community where they perpetrated the offence on their victims. They could be in the house right next door. That is not justice. We need to concern ourselves very much with the effects this legislation would have on the victims. This country needs to take an approach where the lens we put on everything we do has victims in mind. These perpetrators are not the victims.

Consider offences such as assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon. Of course, we can go back to trafficking in or exporting and importing schedule III drugs. After putting poison in our communities, someone can serve their sentence in the community they were poisoning.

We have also heard about diversion for people who have simple possession for personal use of drugs and are struggling with addiction issues. We should have legislation in the House with a comprehension approach for treatment in every single one of the provinces. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice should be working with the provinces every single day to come up with a framework for a national strategy on treatment. Right now, there are no Crown prosecutors bringing people before the courts for simple possession. There has already been a directive given by the prosecution service for that not to happen.

This bill is deeply flawed, and there are a number of ways we could work together in the House to make sure we are standing up for victims and make sure we are addressing those who are struggling with addiction. That is what I would like to turn my attention to and I will not be supporting this legislation.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As my colleague already said, the issue is with when this bill was introduced. There is an increase in gun crimes. Yesterday we learned that 173 women and girls were killed in Canada in 2021 alone. That is a lot.

People are conflating Bill C‑21, which has to do with firearms, with this one. They are conflating serious gun crimes with simple drug possession. They are conflating everything and making questionable associations. There is an important distinction between these two bills and between gun crimes and the simple possession of drugs. This needs to be simplified. The timing of this bill is strange, however.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I work together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, notably on the gun control file.

Every time I hear my Conservative colleagues ask questions about Bill C-5 in question period, I hear the Minister of Public Safety respond with something about Bill C-21. I find that somewhat unfortunate because they are not the same thing.

Although I quite like my colleague, we both know that our opinions differ on this subject. For example, the Bloc members are big believers in rehabilitation and social reintegration. I think that Bill C-5 will help with that.

However, I think my colleague will agree with me that this is not the time to be introducing this bill, given the rise in gun crime across the country. We are trying to find ways to combat that situation.

What message does my colleague think is being sent to the public by introducing this bill at this time?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention this evening was an important intervention. Obviously, the concern on our side is that, on the one hand, we see with Bill C-21 an appearance, real or otherwise, that the Liberals are increasing firearms laws, but on the other hand, with Bill C-5, there is actually an option for those offences to be minimized and not have mandatory sentences. An example the member mentioned was the illegal use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, and there is a whole series of things.

I am wondering if he could comment on this: on the one hand, giving the appearance, as the Liberal government is doing, of strengthening gun laws, which will have no effect, and, on the other hand, diminishing that and allowing criminals to be even more emboldened, more brazen in their activities.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to rise today to speak on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Throughout the years, Canadians have witnessed the disproportionate representation of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities in prisons across the country, including in my home province of Nova Scotia. Following the last federal election, our government promised to reintroduce the former bill, Bill C-22, during the first 100 days of our mandate, and that is exactly what the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada did in December 2021. Bill C-5, as it is now known, supports our government's efforts to eliminate the systemic racism in Canada's criminal justice system that has been reported on for years by commissions of inquiry.

The main objective of Bill C-5 is to ensure public safety while at the same time ensuring that the responses to criminal conduct are fairer and more effective. Importantly, the bill would help reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and marginalized communities in prisons from coast to coast to coast, which we heard the member for Vancouver Kingsway describe.

Bill C-5 would also ensure that courts across the country can continue to impose severe sentences for serious and violent crimes. Canadians all around the country desire a fair and competent criminal justice system. They want their provinces and their cities and their neighbourhoods to be and to feel safe at all times. They want to have faith in their justice system. They want to believe that offenders will be held responsible for their crimes in a transparent, fair and consistent way that upholds our country's ideals. As members of Parliament, we must listen to these concerns and then work hard to act on them, and act on them we have.

Bill C-5 includes three categories of reforms. The first would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for all drug offences, some firearm offences and one tobacco-related offence. Second, it would allow for a greater use of conditional sentence orders, or CSOs, and I will come back to those shortly. The third reform would require police and prosecutors to consider other measures for simple possession of drugs, such as diversion to addiction treatment programs.

Bill C-5 would repeal mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences that are associated with the overrepresentation of the groups I have mentioned.

The numbers do not lie. In 1999-2000, indigenous people represented 2% of the Canadian adult population but accounted for approximately 17% of admissions to federal custody. Since then, those numbers have moved in the wrong direction, and significantly so: Recent data suggests that indigenous Canadians now account for 5% of the Canadian adult population but 30% of federally incarcerated individuals. It is just not right.

Black Canadians represent 3% of the Canadian adult population but 7% of federally incarcerated individuals. They too are overrepresented in terms of federally incarcerated individuals.

Data from the Correctional Service of Canada for 2007 to 2017 revealed that 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people incarcerated in a federal institution during those years were there for offences carrying a mandatory minimum penalty. Again, 39% of Black people and 20% of indigenous people were there because of mandatory minimums.

Further, during the same years, the proportion of indigenous offenders admitted to federal custody for an offence punishable by mandatory minimum penalties almost doubled, rising from 14% to 26%. Bill C-5 would reverse that trend and, in so doing, seek to make the criminal justice system fairer and more equitable for all.

When the Minister of Justice visited my riding of Halifax, he met with members of the African Nova Scotian community, including members of the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute, who, among many things, are committed to fighting racism in the criminal justice system. This group has been advocating impact of race and cultural assessments, something that originated in Nova Scotia, and I want to thank people like Robert Wright for their hard work and Brandon Rolle, who appeared at the justice committee on this legislation, for helping move this idea forward.

Our government is funding impact of race and cultural assessments across Canada by investing $6.64 million over five years, followed by $1.6 million of annual ongoing funding.

Alongside the changes contained in the bill, these are the kinds of important investments needed to make our justice system fairer for all.

If mandatory minimum sentences are repealed, as provided for in Bill C-5, individuals may still be sentenced to harsh penalties. However, the courts will be able to consider the unique circumstances of each offence and determine the most appropriate sentence, rather than having their hands tied by mandatory minimum sentences, which, as we just heard, are filling up the jails with people who do not need to be there. This will help ensure that a person found guilty of an offence receives a sentence that is proportionate to their degree of responsibility and to the seriousness of the offence, while taking into account individualized factors.

Canada is not alone in recognizing that the increased and indiscriminate use of mandatory minimum penalties has proven to be a costly, ineffective and unfair approach to reducing crime, as others have also moved to reform. For instance, while the United States has historically made great use of MMPs, or mandatory minimum penalties, in the last decade many states, including Republican states, have moved toward reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences, with a particular focus on non-violent and drug-related charges.

The lead that the opposition followed in the Harper years from the Republicans in the United States has been proven not to work, and those Republicans are now changing their approach. Also, evidence shows that approaches other than imprisonment, such as community-based sanctions, reduce reoffending because they enable more effective reintegration into the community and reduce the stigma associated with criminal justice system involvement.

I do want to emphasize that those who commit serious crimes should face serious consequences. This is why, alongside Bill C-5, our government has brought forward Bill C-21, which will increase maximum penalties for firearms crimes. This would create the flexibility needed for our judges to impose appropriate sentences based on individual situations, and it is baffling to me that the Conservatives do not support it.

Bill C-5 would also increase the availability of conditional sentence orders, known as CSOs, without compromising public safety, so that sentencing courts could impose community-based sentences of less than two years when the offender does not pose a risk to public safety. A CSO is a sentence of incarceration of less than two years that is served in the community under strict conditions, such as curfew, house arrest, treatment and/or restrictions on possessing, owning or carrying a weapon.

The evidence is clear: Allowing offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety to serve their sentences under strict conditions in their community can be more effective at reducing future criminality. Offenders can keep a job, maintain ties with their families and maintain ties with their community. These are the measures that bring back flexibility of sentencing by allowing judges to help people, not just jail them.

For example, a judge can impose a CSO for an offender to serve their sentence at home and receive appropriate mental health and rehabilitation supports that we have heard again and again are so important to rehabilitation. This will increase access to alternatives to incarceration for low-risk offenders while also furthering the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence.

We have heard some claims from the other side that dangerous offenders will be able to get CSOs. That is simply not the case. CSOs will not be available for some offences prosecuted by way of indictment, including advocating genocide, torture, attempted murder, terrorism and criminal organization offences, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more. CSOs will only be available for sentences of under two years for offenders who do not pose a risk to public safety.

This is an important step in reorienting our criminal justice system so that it is both fairer and more effective, while ensuring public safety at the same time. All in all, Bill C-5 represents an important step in our government's efforts to eliminate systemic racism in Canadian society. This bill would also ensure that all Canadians have a safer and more equitable future.

The measures outlined in this bill go hand in hand with a slew of additional investments announced in the 2020 fall economic statement and the 2021 budget, which provide funding to promote co-operation on an indigenous justice strategy and engagement with indigenous communities and groups on creating legislation and activities that address systemic barriers in the criminal justice system.

Further, the government provides funding to community groups and programs that aid at-risk adolescents, give alternatives to criminal charges when possible, and help fight injustices in the judicial system that affect Black Canadians, indigenous peoples and other racialized communities.

I urge all of my colleagues in this chamber to support Bill C-5 to ensure a more equitable and fairer future for all Canadians. Regardless of their race, ethnicity or socio-economic backgrounds, Canadians from coast to coast deserve to feel safe and accepted in our society.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of democracy is voting and showing up to this place and participating, and that is of course what we do. Whether it is Bill C-11 or Bill C-21, there will be an opportunity, obviously, to continue debating legislation.

On Bill C-11 specifically, there were nine days at committee and many days at second reading. We have opportunities at third reading, and it will be going to the Senate. It is taking essential action to protect Canadian creators and Canadian heritage. We are proud to support this bill, and part of the thrust and parry of this place is that sometimes we disagree. That is not a representation of a decline in democracy; it is proof of it working.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage of Bill C-5 in respect of mandatory minimums. We will then call second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation.

Tomorrow, we will debate government Motion No. 16 regarding proceedings for Bill C-11, as I was mentioning, on the Broadcasting Act.

When we return next week, we will focus on this government motion debate and continue our work on Bill C-5 and Bill C-11, as well as on Bill C-14 concerning electoral representation.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see you in the chair. I hope you are getting your strength back. You sound like it. You are doing a good job of keeping everybody in good spirits.

Before my question, there are a couple of issues that I want to bring to the attention of the government House leader.

Number one is that we are requesting a take-note debate on the issue of food security, which is having a significant effect around the world, as members know, as a result of many geopolitical issues.

The second thing is a request to split Bill C-21 so that we can work on victims and the protection of victims in domestic violence.

The third thing is that there have been significant concerns among stakeholders and advocates right across the country regarding Bill C-11. We are seeing some draconian measures being proposed by the government to deal with this piece of legislation. I am concerned about that.

Before I ask for the schedule, I am wondering what the government House leader's plan is to effectively silence the voices of millions of people who voted for opposition MPs in this place and, furthermore, what his plans are to contribute to a further decline in democracy in this place over the course of the next week.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday there were another three shootings in less than six hours in Montreal, and the Government of Quebec has said that it has not yet received the money it was promised to combat gun violence.

Quebec is putting in the work. For example, it has announced a special patrol to combat gun trafficking in Akwesasne. Ottawa, however, has not even sent Quebec the money it was promised. How shameful.

When will the government finally transfer the money it promised Quebec? Montreal has a gun problem right now, not “one day”, “maybe”, “if we have the time”, “if it is not too hot” or “if it is not raining”. The problem is now. I also want to inform the minister that this has nothing to do with Bill C‑21.

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we need a justice system that makes sure serious crimes come with serious penalties, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are increasing the maximum penalties for certain gun offences from 10 to 14 years. That means we are allowing judges to impose longer sentences on serious criminals who endanger our communities.

Based on what we are hearing from Conservatives, they will vote against Bill C-21 and against longer sentences for those criminals. We are taking a responsible approach to keeping our communities safe. The same cannot be said of the Conservative Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is talking about Bill C-21, but I am asking him about Bill C-5.

Gang crime in the streets of Montreal is currently on the rise. Gang members are walking around with their guns and showing them off to everyone. They are not afraid, because the message the Liberal government is sending is that there is no problem and that people can commit gun crimes and will not receive a minimum sentence.

Why is the government going forward with Bill C-5 when it will increase crime on the streets of Montreal?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the level of violence caused by firearms is entirely unacceptable.

That is precisely why we introduced Bill C‑21. The Conservatives need to stop with their delay tactics and obstruction. We need to start the debate to better protect Quebeckers and all Canadians.

There are many good things, common sense measures, in this bill. We need to pass this bill to better protect all Canadians.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, divisive policies do not protect people. Fear does not protect people. Virtue-signalling does not protect people. The Liberals are using U.S.-style wedge politics for their own political gain. It will not keep Canadians safe, and it will not stop violence.

Conservatives will be putting forward a sincere offer to split Bill C-21 so that victims of domestic violence can be protected as soon as possible. We can work together to get this done, but it is up to the Liberals. They have two options: They can either accept the offer to protect victims immediately, or they can reject it and continue with their divisive rhetoric, which would leave victims vulnerable.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe that meaningful and effective steps must be taken to end gun violence and gun crime in Canada. Canadians need to be safe, and victims of domestic violence need to be protected. While there are aspects of Bill C-21 that we can agree on, specifically on domestic violence issues, the rest of the bill falls short and would do nothing to end gun violence.

Will the Liberals agree to split Bill C-21 into two bills? One would be to protect the victims of domestic violence, while the other aspects of the bill would be reworked to offer real and effective solutions to gun crime and gun trafficking.

Firearms Legislation

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest risk factors in a violent intimate relationship is gun ownership. Just by virtue of having a gun in the home, the lethality of intimate partner violence increases by 500%.

A femicide occurs every two and a half days in our country. It routinely follows documented incidents of intimate partner violence, and it disproportionately affects indigenous women and women living in rural areas.

Intimate partner violence and gun violence intersect, and they intersect in deadly ways. That is why Bill C-21's new red flag law is crucial: It would ensure that anyone who is proved to be at risk of harming themselves or those around them would not be able to possess a firearm licence.

There are still too many women in this country who live in fear. These new provisions would save lives, and I hope everyone in the House will support the bill's speedy passage.

Report Stage

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-5 at report stage. I am profoundly disappointed as a parliamentarian and deeply ashamed as a former Crown attorney that this seriously flawed, reckless and dangerous bill has made it this far in the process.

I left behind a proud and rewarding legal career as a public servant for the Province of Ontario, a career defined by holding criminals accountable for their actions, which ranged from mischief all the way through to and including first degree murder. It was a career further defined by advocating for victims' rights, which is a concept that is completely alien to this virtue-signalling government. Neither this bill nor Bill C-21 makes any reference to the rights and protection of victims.

I was frustrated as a Crown attorney that the judicial system was out of balance. The proverbial pendulum over my career was significantly shifting in favour of the accused at the expense of protecting victims of crime. There must be a balance.

The government will repeatedly make statements in the House that it cares deeply for victims and that their rights matter, but it is simply talk with no action. An example of this lip service is the fact the government has not replaced the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, a position left vacant since last October 1. It is shameful.

It is time to dispel the myths and misinformation coming from the government whenever its members speak about this bill.

Number one, this is not legislation targeted at low-risk offenders. Use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of an unauthorized firearm, possession of a firearm with ammunition, weapons trafficking, importing and exporting of firearms, discharging a firearm with intent, reckless discharge of a firearm and robbery with a firearm are indeed extremely serious violent offences for which judges across this country routinely impose significant jail sentences and often prison on the offenders.

These are not the types of people described by our Attorney General when the bill was introduced. We all remember that story: We are to imagine a young man who has too many pops on a Saturday night and decides to pick up a loaded gun and shoot into a barn. According to our Attorney General, we should feel sorry for this individual, as it would be a cruel and unusual punishment to impose a mandatory minimum penalty.

Number two, this is not legislation that would reverse former PM Harper's Safe Streets and Communities Act. Several of the charges outlined in Bill C-5 include mandatory minimum penalties that were introduced by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1977 and Jean Chrétien in 1995, two Liberal majority governments.

Third, according to the government and supported by its NDP partners and Green Party members, mandatory minimums are ineffective in reducing crime or keeping our communities safe. The simple fact is that if they actually believed this, instead of virtue signalling to Canadians, they would table legislation to remove all mandatory minimums. There are 53 offences that would remain in the Criminal Code if this bill passes. This includes impaired operation of a vehicle. Apparently it is important to hold drunk drivers accountable while allowing criminals and thugs to terrorize our communities by shooting up our streets.

The fourth point is that according to the government, courts from across this country, including appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada, are striking down mandatory minimum penalties as being contrary to the charter. For reasons previously described, mandatory minimums introduced by previous Liberal governments have been upheld by various courts for over 40 years.

Five, this is not legislation targeting people charged with simple possession. Bill C-5 would eliminate six mandatory minimums under the CDSA, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These include the very serious offences of trafficking, importing, exporting and production of controlled substances. Drugs such as fentanyl and carfentanil are the most deadly and lethal form of street drugs, and an amount the size of a grain of salt is capable of killing an elephant. These drugs are not serious enough for the government. These are the same drugs that are causing an opioid crisis that results in daily overdoses and deaths. Do these killer criminals deserve mercy from the Liberal government? What has this country become?

Finally, this legislation is supposed to address racism and reduce the over-incarceration of Black Canadians and indigenous offenders.

The Alberta minister of justice, Kaycee Madu, a Black Canadian, noted:

While Ottawa’s new justice bill...contains some reasonable measures, I am deeply concerned about the decision to gut tough sentencing provisions for gun crimes...

Removing tough, mandatory penalties for actual gun crimes undermines the very minority communities that are so often victimized by brazen gun violence. I also find it disingenuous for Ottawa to exploit a genuine issue like systemic racism to push through their soft-on-crime bills.

I have prosecuted in the trenches for close two decades, unlike the Attorney General and members of the Liberal government. I can state on authority that the overriding sentencing consideration associated with the crimes relating to Bill C-5 are denunciation, deterrence and separation from society. In other words, it does not matter one's gender, ethnicity or race. Upon conviction, criminals are going to jail, period. It is time for the government to be honest with Canadians and accept that Bill C-5 will not substantially address the over-incarceration issue.

Throughout the entire time this bill has been debated, I and other colleagues, most notably the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, have argued that there is a compromise for the government to consider. A constitutional exemption to all the charges outlined in the bill would give trial judges the legal authority to exempt criminals from a mandatory minimum penalty if they belong to a vulnerable population that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system and who are disadvantaged with regard to sentencing. This exemption would preserve the mandatory minimum penalties, but give judges the flexibility to craft an appropriate sentence. My amendment to this bill at committee was summarily dismissed by the Liberal chair as outside the scope of the study, which is shameful.

Brantford police chief Rob Davis, the only indigenous leader of a municipal police service in Ontario, testified at committee: “With Bill C-5 and the proposed changes now, we are going to see sentencing become a joke”. He continued, “With...turning sentences into conditional sentences...the justice system is being brought into disrepute. People will operate with impunity and the victims' rights are going to be given away [for] the rights of the criminal.”

Chief Davis also said, “Victims of communities will live in fear of gun violence and fearful of retaliation by armed criminals, and people will continue to overdose”.

The committee also heard from Chief Darren Montour from the Six Nations Police Service, whose testimony was clear. He stated:

...proposed conditional sentences for violent offences will not deter offenders from committing further crimes. We are not in a position to continuously monitor sentenced offenders to ensure their compliance with...restrictions handed down by the courts. Police services across the country, and especially those within indigenous communities, are significantly understaffed. We are continuously asked to do more with less, and we cannot sustain this workload.

He also stated that he can appreciate the statistics regarding the over-incarceration issue, “but along with the rights of offenders, victims and victims' families deserve rights as well.”

Hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast signed the petition on my website, which I recently presented in the House. They called on the government to immediately withdraw Bill C-5. Here is a news release for the Liberal government: Canadians are terrified at the prospect that criminals convicted of sex assault and kidnapping will also enjoy serving that sentence in the comfort of their homes, the very same homes in which they committed their crimes. It is deeply shameful.

The number one priority for the federal government is to keep Canadians safe. The government has been derelict in its responsibility.

I, together with my Conservative caucus members, will always stand on the side of victims and keeping our communities safe by holding criminals accountable for their actions. I will be very strongly voting against this bill, and I encourage all members in the House to do the same.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, according to experts, the increase in cases of gun violence in Montreal in recent years is a new phenomenon. Gang members now appear to be firing multiple shots at buildings and cars to send a message and mark what they claim is their territory.

However, the guns they are using are not covered by Bill C-21. Will the minister admit that the solution to this scourge is about more than just making these guns illegal, as Bill C-21 proposes to do? More importantly, we need to prevent illegal guns from getting into our neighbourhoods.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, serious crime in this country will always carry with it serious consequences. The kinds of situations that we are targeting with this legislation on minimum mandatory penalties are situations where public security and public safety are not at risk. It is being done to attack the systemic overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the criminal justice system.

The kinds of situations that he is describing are being attacked in Bill C-21, and we are raising the maximum penalties.

Public Safety

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share what I heard from the representative of a community that this government claims it wants to help. She says that eliminating these minimum sentences is not only a bad idea masquerading as a good one, but an idea that will further jeopardize the communities this initiative is supposed to protect. That is what we heard from Murielle Chatellier in a parliamentary committee.

On the one hand, the Prime Minister is abolishing mandatory minimum sentences with Bill C‑5; on the other, he does not mention victims of gun violence even once in Bill C‑21.

Why is the Prime Minister so intent on helping criminals rather than victims?

Justice

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken several times with my Quebec counterpart, Minister Guilbault, and we will continue to exchange views on Bill C‑21. Minister Guilbault announced her support for this bill. She said that it was a step in the right direction for the protection of Quebeckers and even all Canadians.

We must start debating this bill so we can implement measures to protect Canadians, and I hope that the Conservatives will now change course.

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

Mr. Speaker, serious crime will always have serious consequences.

What we are doing with Bill C‑5 is completely different. We are targeting the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous people in the criminal justice system. We are talking about offences where public safety is not at stake. For serious offences, there is Bill C-21. I hope the opposition will support both of these bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, what playing politics looks like in this chamber is when there is filibustering, which is exactly what the Conservatives engaged in last Friday when we were supposed to start debating Bill C-21.

What we need to do is move forward with a national freeze on handguns. We need to move forward with the tools that will allow us to take on organized crime and gun violence.

When we actually look at the Conservatives on this issue, they have no plan except for legalizing AR-15s and assault-style rifles, which will make our communities more dangerous. Our bill will protect communities. That is why they should vote for it.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, what playing politics looks like in this chamber is exactly what we saw last Friday and what we are pretty sure we are going to continue to see from Conservatives. Rather than allowing for debate to commence on Bill C-21, they are stalling it, filibustering it. which is

Notwithstanding that, we are going to continue to have this debate—

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague had read the bill, she would see that this initiative tackles organized crime head-on by raising maximum sentences against serious hardened criminals who would terrorize our communities.

I was in my hon. colleague's province just last week to speak with Eileen Mohan, who lost her son some 15 years ago to gun violence, unnecessary, harsh, needless, senseless violence.

If my hon. colleague is interested in protecting her community, then she will vote for Bill C-21. It enjoys the support of survivors. It enjoys the support of women's groups. It enjoys the support of law enforcement.

We should all unite behind this bill, because that is how we will protect Canadians.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we introduced Bill C-21. As I already said, I am always willing to work with my colleague. I agree with the Bloc Québécois's goal, vision and concept, but we still need to examine the bill.

It is too bad that the Conservatives picked a fight on Friday when we had time to start this debate. We really need to move forward on this. We need to pass this bill as soon as possible.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that shootings and tragic events caused by firearms are unacceptable. I am always ready to work with my Bloc colleagues.

However, today, we are studying Bill C‑21 in the House. I very much look forward to starting the debate on this bill, because the measures it contains can make all communities and all Canadians safer.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is official: 2021 was Montreal's most violent year in a decade. The police released its annual report, and there were 25,000 crimes against the person. Incidents where shots were fired doubled compared to last year. This wave of violence can be traced back to organized crime and its illegal weapons.

The federal government must do more than restrict legal firearms. Illegal weapons are plaguing Montreal. Will the minister admit that Bill C‑21 does not solve this problem?

Justice

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is the height of irony to hear an hon. colleague representing the Conservative Party of Canada talk about law and order when Conservatives put forward an agenda that has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in failed MMPs, when they cut nearly $1 billion from front-line RCMP officers and CBSA, which we had to put back, and we did, to protect our communities.

I hope that colleague will look at Bill C-21 and vote for it. That is how we will protect communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that Bill C-21 does nothing to tackle gangs and organized crime. It is no surprise, because the Liberal government always fails to get tough on hardened criminals.

Under Bill C-5, they are removing mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes committed with firearms. In a recent access to information response, it was revealed that the Liberal government cut funding to combat gun and gang violence by more than half, failing to spend over $150 million targeted to fight crime.

Why is the government reducing sentences for violent criminals and slashing funding for fighting crime?

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely hope that my hon. colleague and all Conservatives will read very carefully Bill C-21, which takes organized crime head-on by raising maximum sentences against organized criminals who are trafficking guns across our borders, and by giving police additional wiretap authorities to prevent gun crime from occurring in the first place.

I would encourage my hon. colleague to vote for Bill C-21. By the way, he should also vote for fighting against Islamophobia the next time there is a motion on the floor of the House of Commons. That is the kind of solidarity we need to show for the Muslim community, especially today.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those are more words and no action.

Contrary to the government's claim, Bill C-21 is not about getting tough on crime and it is not targeted at the gang members who are shooting up our streets. On the one hand, the Liberals try to increase the maximum penalty, yet they push eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for a number of serious gun crimes under Bill C-5. Also, let us not forget that last year they voted down the Conservatives' bill that proposed making the punishment harder for criminals using smuggled guns. It is shameful.

When will the Prime Minister put the rights of victims first and commit to ending his soft-on-crime agenda?

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, serious offences in this country are always punished with serious sentences. That is why we are moving forward to increase penalties for certain gun infractions, as Bill C-21 proposes.

We also are making sure that we attack systemic discrimination within our criminal justice system so that indigenous Canadians and Black Canadians are not overrepresented in that system.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 cracks down on criminal groups with concrete measures. For example, it imposes harsher penalties for criminals who engage in illegal gun trafficking at the border and gives the police more authority to prevent gun violence.

That is one of the measures that we can take in co-operation with the Bloc, but we need to study this bill, debate it and pass it as quickly as possible.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. It is unacceptable that there would be threats like those you mentioned.

That is precisely why we introduced Bill C‑21. I hope that the Bloc will work with the government to pass this bill as soon as possible. That is one of the concrete measures we can use to protect our communities.

Public Accounts

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

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the role and importance of the Auditor General cannot be underestimated. We have consistently, whether when in government or in opposition, encouraged the Auditor General to provide these much-needed reports. Whether we have a Conservative government or a Liberal government, these things all help society as a whole, and there is a response to the report.

Having said that, I think it is really important to note here that we see the behaviour of the Conservative Party once again surface. Canadians expect a sense of co-operation and a sense that the House of Commons will respond to the electoral mandate we were all given to focus attention on Canadians and on the important issues facing Canadians today.

We were supposed to be debating Bill C-21. The minister made a point of being here to listen to what opposition members had to say when he introduced this legislation at second reading. The legislation would make it illegal to transfer, sell or buy handguns, and the Conservative Party, true to form, is again playing a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

Here, the Conservatives have an opportunity to deal with an issue that is important to Canadians. Maybe they should talk to some of the people in Quebec, Ontario and other jurisdictions to get a better understanding of what the real issues are, as opposed to continuing to play the types of games we see day in and day out from a party that has no rudder. Its members are all over the map on a wide variety of issues.

At the end of the day, Canadians deserve a more effective opposition. I sat in opposition for many years, and the types of issues that are before us today as a nation deserve more attention from the official opposition. The games—

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts. After question period, we were supposed to actually be debating Bill C-21, and now we have a few minutes left of the government legislation. That legislation was important. It would make it illegal to transfer, sell or purchase handguns. That is something really important to Canadians. At a time when Canadians want this legislature to work in a co-operative fashion, why is the Conservative Party trying to filibuster legislation of such importance that the minister was here today to present it and to have that debate take place. Why wait until the last few minutes?

I would be interested in hearing why the Conservative Party does not feel this is an important issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really quite pleased with the member's endorsement of the fact that, during the Standing Orders debate, I made the suggestion that Friday be a debate day, so I am going to take that as an endorsement of that particular recommendation I was making.

I will go back to the point about the government's legislative agenda, because that is really what we are talking about today, when the opposition moves yet another concurrence motion. Does the Conservative Party have any sense in terms of a commitment to pass Bill C-21, or could we anticipate that there are going to be many speakers on that particular bill? Are the Conservatives prepared to see that bill ultimately pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives, once again, want to use their political gamesmanship to prevent good legislation from being passed. Bill C-21 is what we are supposed to be talking about today, but they have reached into their not-so-tricky tricky book and they are saying they want to debate this particular issue.

Why does the member feel that the Conservative Party wants to continue to play games inside the House and prevent the important debate that Canadians want? Bill C-21 is about guns and so forth. Why are the Conservatives trying to avoid that debate?

Justice

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that it is unacceptable that we continue to see innocent lives taken away as a result of gun violence, which is why I hope my colleague and the Conservatives support Bill C-21, because it takes on organized crime head-on. It would raise maximum penalties against illegal smugglers and gun traffickers. It would also give police more—

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me join my colleague opposite in welcoming you in your return to the role of Speaker. It is wonderful to see you there. I almost cannot see you because of the monument. I guess it is a homage to Fenway Park. It is our own green monster that has been constructed in this chamber. I can kind of see your head over it. It is wonderful to see you back in this place and in such fine form and good health. Welcome back.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, the budget legislation, which was reported back to the House from the finance committee yesterday. I want to take the opportunity to thank all members for their hard work on getting it back so quickly. Tomorrow afternoon, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Our priorities for next week will be report stage and third reading of the budget bill, and Bill C-5 regarding mandatory minimum sentences. Finally, I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, June 7 shall be an allotted day.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are doing such a good job that last night in Laval, a close associate of the Mafia was shot in the middle of a restaurant in front of children. Bill C‑21 is clearly not curbing conflict between crime groups.

Organized crime is behind the wave of shootings in Montreal. These groups are importing illegal weapons and using them freely on our streets. The government needs to open its eyes and help police stop this scourge.

Do the government members understand how important and urgent it is to create an organized crime registry?

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am happy to address this aspect, which I did not have time to talk about in my initial presentation.

First, with respect to Bill C-21, let us forget that. We need to fix this quickly, since there is not a single street gang that buys their guns at Canadian Tire. That does not happen.

With respect to systemic racism, what kind of twisted idea is it to claim that if there are indigenous or racialized people in our prisons, it is because the penalties are too harsh? What kind of an argument is that?

This population needs help, that is what we heard in committee. Yes, there are more people in prison; those are the statistics, and I will not change them. It is true that there are more indigenous and Black people in prison, but we need money, we need to work with these people and help their communities. It takes more than social workers, health care, education and all that to help them not commit crimes. To argue that society will lower its standards, that people from the Black or indigenous communities commit crimes and therefore we will reduce penalties so they do not go to prison, is just mind-blowing. I could not believe it when I read that.

When I saw my colleagues defend that in committee, I was happy I was not in their shoes. I imagine that the caucus forces them to defend these views, but if I were in their shoes I think I would have left the caucus.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague opposite, and I believe he comes from a really good space when he talks about this bill, but I want to highlight a couple of things.

First and foremost is Bill C-21. A lot of the challenges the member addressed in his speech are addressed in Bill C-21. We have heard from him about them a number of times and we have delivered. It was tabled on Monday.

The issue that I want to probe with the member is the notion of systemic racism, because it is an area where we have had some conversations and I do not believe he is quite there yet in acknowledging that systemic racism exists.

After the report from the Office of the Correctional Investigator yesterday and after the testimony of people like the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and many others, does my friend opposite acknowledge that systemic racism exists and that we need to ensure our system of justice is fair and equitable to all who are part of it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-5. I find this bill important but disheartening at the same time. The way in which the bill was presented is deplorable, and that is very sad. Bill C‑5 is really two bills in one. The first decriminalizes certain offences, and the second establishes diversion measures while also abolishing minimum sentences. These are two very different issues.

We are comfortable with the elimination of certain minimum sentences. Generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois believes that minimum sentences are not a cure-all. We think that they can actually be harmful in many cases and that we should trust the judges overseeing criminal trials. However, we believe that minimum sentences can be useful in some circumstances.

It would be especially unfortunate to eliminate them at the wrong time. Right now, gun violence is on the rise in Montreal and many other Canadian cities, and people want the government to do something. The government proposed Bill C-21 in an effort to control the circulation of legal weapons. However, the bill does nothing about the illegal weapons being used by street gangs to commit crimes and shoot people in the streets.

The Bloc says that this problem needs to be addressed, and we have some suggestions. For months now, we have been standing up in the House and talking about the need to identify organized criminal gangs and include targeted measures against members of criminal gangs in the Criminal Code. We have proposed a joint task force to stem the trafficking of illegal guns through indigenous reserves. People on the reserves have agreed to work with us on this plan. We have proposed more funding for border controls, to no avail. All of these measures would help curtail shootings, but the government has done nothing in this respect.

Now we have Bill C-5, which not only does nothing to fight gun violence committed with illegal weapons, but which also eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for crimes that I believe are pretty serious. I hardly consider armed robbery to be a trivial matter. Armed extortion is not a trivial matter either, nor is discharging a firearm with intent to wound, maim or disfigure. The government wants to eliminate the minimum sentences for these crimes just as the public is expressing concern. People want the government to do something to reassure them. Not only is the government responding by doing nothing, but it is eliminating the minimum sentences for these crimes. I am appalled.

At the same time, the government is establishing diversion measures for certain offences involving illicit substances. It is offering diversion for possession of substances for personal use. Rather than sending a person with drug addiction to prison, we will provide treatment. We will help the person regain control of their life and become a useful member of society again. That is a good thing.

However, these are two completely different subjects. The government is taking Parliament hostage by saying this is a package deal. Members are being forced to decide whether they are totally for it or totally against it. I find that appalling. In my opinion, that is a way of muzzling democracy.

I would have liked to hear my colleague from the governing party speak to this aspect of the issue. Why did his party refuse to split the bill from the beginning, as we requested? That would have made it a lot easier to work on. In any case, we have to live with it now. It is what it is.

Getting back to what I was saying about minimum sentences, there is a major problem with some of the offences. We tried to find solutions. The Bloc Québécois is against many things, but we are also in favour of certain things. Above all, we try to improve the bills that come through the House. Whenever we can make them acceptable and make sure they reflect the values and interests of the people we represent, we are happy to do so.

In this spirit, we made a suggestion. Now is not the time to abolish minimum sentences, because this would send the wrong message. Not only would it not reassure the public, but it would worry them even more. We therefore suggested maintaining the minimum sentences and adding clauses stating that the court could override them under exceptional circumstances.

That is the system used in other jurisdictions, and it works, as an expert told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We proposed adding a clause requiring judges to state, if applicable, that the case they are trying is an exceptional case and that, under the circumstances, they will override the mandatory minimum sentence for such and such a reason. The clause would provide guidelines and ensure that justice is taken seriously.

Our proposal was so good that the Liberals changed two or three words and proposed it themselves. I was very happy about that, since I feel no need to take credit for the amendments to Bill C-5. However, when the time came to put the Liberals' amendment to a vote, none of them rose to present it, so I did it for them. I am dismayed by these sorts of games, because I think they are anti-democratic. They do not serve the interest of voters, either in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. I am appalled by these tactics, and I would like to hear what my colleague across the aisle has to say about this.

That being said, there is also the whole diversion component, which is important to us, as I mentioned earlier. That is why I feel torn today. I do not know what to do. We will have to live with our decision, and it feels a bit like choosing between the plague and cholera. Whichever way we vote, we will be partly disappointed and partly happy.

However, we could have been completely happy if everyone here could have come to an agreement, because we basically want the same thing. I do not think that the members across the aisle, or my Conservative and NDP colleagues, are acting in bad faith. I simply think that we have different ways of looking at things and that, if we work together, we can find solutions that will satisfy our interests, our prerogatives and our respective voters. Unfortunately, we were unable to find common ground.

The opioid crisis is affecting Rivière‑du‑Nord, and it is a major problem. We have a great many other problems that we would like to solve using rehabilitation.

The Quebec government has already adopted diversion measures for criminal offences. It tries to rehabilitate people rather than make them stand trial and send them to prison. We try to help them reintegrate into society and become active contributors again, as most of them used to be. For whatever reason, these people had experiences that set them on a path they would not otherwise have chosen, any more than we would have. In Quebec, we believe that we can help them and rehabilitate them.

I applaud diversion efforts, and so does the Bloc. I think that it is the right solution, for the same reason that we previously voted in favour of the NDP's Bill C-216 along the same lines. We need to work with these people and help them. They do not need jail time, they need help. Drug addiction is a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. We therefore applaud this measure.

However, we are torn over the idea of abolishing minimum sentences. This would send a message that I dare not describe in the House. I will say just that it is completely out of touch with reality because, day after day, people are shooting up day cares and apartment buildings. Just this morning, I read in the news that a stray bullet found its way into a senior's apartment. Fortunately, she was not hit.

Members will recall that someone shot up a day care last week. That is not even organized crime. It is just delinquency. I am not a criminologist, and I cannot say any more on this subject, but we need to address this problem. Gun control falls under the federal Criminal Code, but the federal government is not doing anything. On top of that inaction, it wants to abolish the minimum sentences for these offences. I think that is just terrible.

We will see how we vote on the bill, but I will admit that we are torn. This is not a good day for democracy.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am shocked that the member opposite raised this issue because, for a number of the offences within Bill C-5, such as weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, and possession of a weapon obtained in the commission of an offence, the government said last week that people would not go to jail at all, and this week, in Bill C-21, for those very same offences, it has increased the maximum penalties. It cannot have it both ways.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is trying to play both sides.

We are talking about Bill C-5 and he is talking about Bill C-21, but what is clear is that Quebecker Anie Samson told the committee that “a criminal who uses an illegal firearm, regardless of their [ethnic] origin, is still a criminal. It would be incomprehensible to let criminals use firearms to kill, rob or threaten people without worrying about having to face the same consequences as other criminals”.

The Prime Minister, with the complicity of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, would rather play petty politics than keep Canadian communities safe.

Does the Prime Minister realize the negative impact that Bill C-5 will have?

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague that shootings are unacceptable tragedies. That is exactly why we introduced Bill C‑21, to target the criminals who cause tragedy and create chaos in our communities.

This bill sets out tough new penalties for criminals and increases resources for police. We will work with the Bloc and all members of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that it was the shots fired last week at a Montreal day care that convinced him to introduce Bill C‑21. However, would this bill have prevented that shooting? That is hard to believe.

Criminal gangs are simply not targeted in this bill, yet it is these gangs that are front and centre in the illegal gun trade that fuels the shootings. Will the minister finally agree to create an organized crime registry in order to help police catch known gang members?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑21 on gun control is a step forward, and the Bloc Québécois will work with the minister to improve it, but nothing has been resolved today. Assault weapons have not been banned.

To this day, the mandatory buyback program remains nothing but a promise. It is not in the bill. To this day, there is no clear definition of what an assault weapon is, so new models can circumvent the rules. If Bill C‑21 were passed today, assault weapons would remain in circulation.

Does the minister agree that these gaps absolutely must be addressed?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is misleading Canadians. Bill C-5 and the other measures by the Liberal government are failing to keep our communities safe. They are putting them at risk. If they wanted to stop gun violence, they would put more resources to border agents to stop gun smuggling. They would put more resources to police to stop violent criminals with guns. They would put more resources to anti-gang community groups to divert youth from a life of crime.

That is how we stop gun violence, not useless gun bans or bills like Bill C-21 that will do nothing to stop gun violence in this country. Is that not right?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I really enjoyed working with her on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I hope she will serve on it again in this Parliament.

She talked about gun control. In the previous Parliament, we did not have the time to study Bill C‑21, which nobody liked anyway, not firearms owners and not those who want to see assault weapons and all other firearms banned, because it did not make the buyback of military-style assault weapons mandatory.

The Liberals have promised to make the buyback mandatory, which is a very good thing. However, the problem with the May 2020 list of banned firearms is that similar firearms or variations on them, like the SKS, are still available on the market.

Why not try to include a definition of a military-style assault weapon in the Criminal Code? That way, we would know what type of firearms to ban, instead of making a list of banned firearms and leaving similar firearms on the market.

What does my colleague think of that?

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister continues to mislead Canadians with that response. Under the Liberal government, gang violence continues to terrorize our communities, just like it did in Etobicoke this weekend. In Toronto, there have been over 160 shootings, with dozens injured or killed, in the last six months alone.

The Liberals' failed approach with Bill C-71, the gun ban, the confiscation plans and Bill C-21 focused on law-abiding firearms owners rather than illegal firearms and criminals. Instead of deceitful, tired talking points, when will the minister admit their plans are failing and put forward measures that actually protect Canadians?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present the following petition on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. The federal government introduced Bill C-21, which includes sections that prohibit the majority of replica firearms, such as airsoft guns. It will also criminalize thousands of law-abiding Canadians for possessing legally obtained firearms and financially devastate thousands of Canadians who are reliant on the sale of firearms. As well, hunting has a long history in Canada for both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians and needlessly revoking the firearms of citizens erases and discounts our history and traditions. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop targeting law-abiding citizens for possessing legally obtained firearms, protect their rights and freedoms by ensuring that firearm legislation is based on evidence and not ideology, and withdraw Bill C-21.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation Motion

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, is it not true that the minister's own government tabled Bill C-21, the so-called anti-gun bill? When going after lawful firearms owners, the government sent an email to fundraise off the bill and it has barely moved it forward since then.

Is it not true that the minister failed to explain the bill on national TV? Is it not true that the minister failed to carry out his basic duty to make sure he tabled a bill in the House of Commons in its correct format? Is it not true that there are many voices on the left, centre and right of the spectrum that have said the bill is defective? It is not a partisan issue. When we have OpenMedia, Michael Geist, Peter Menzies and Conservatives agreeing, we know we have a defective bill.

Is it not true that the minister failed in his responsibilities?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this issue this afternoon. There are a couple of aspects that I would like to provide some comment on, but first and foremost is the idea of Bill C-30, now at report stage, and how important passing it is to all Canadians.

The other day, I talked about a progressive agenda. The Government of Canada has put forward a very strong, healthy, progressive agenda that includes today's bill, Bill C-12, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, Bill C-22 and Bill C-21. Of course, I often make reference to Bill C-19 as well. All of these pieces of legislation are important to the government, but I would argue that the most important one is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-30.

The budget is of critical importance for a wide variety of reasons. I can talk about the benefits that seniors would be receiving as a direct result of this budget bill, in particular those who are 75 and over, with the significant fulfillment of our campaign promise of a 10% increase to OAS for seniors aged 75 and above, and a one-time payment coming up in the month of August for that group. During the pandemic, we have been there for seniors, in particular those 65 and over, with one-time payments closer to the beginning of the pandemic, and even an extra amount for those who were on the guaranteed income supplement. That is not to mention the many different organizations that the government supported, whether directly or indirectly, to support our seniors, in particular non-profit organizations.

We have done a multitude of things, many of which are very tangible. The Minister of Finance made reference to the extension of some of the programs, for example, which we brought in so we could continue to be there for businesses and real people. This was so important. At the beginning of the process, the Prime Minister made it very clear that this government, the Liberal Party and the Liberal members of the House of Commons were 100% committed to working seven days a week, 24 hours a day to ensure that the interests of Canadians in combatting and fighting the pandemic were going to be priority number one.

As to that priority, we saw the establishment of a large number of new programs that ensured money was being put directly into the pockets of Canadians. One was the CERB, which benefited somewhere around nine million Canadians. Virtually out of nowhere this program came into being, in good part thanks to our civil servants, who have done a tremendous job in putting in place and administering the many different programs.

We have seen programs to support our businesses in particular, whether it is the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account or the regional relief and recovery fund. We recognized what Canada needed. The Government of Canada worked with Canadians and with, in particular, provinces, non-profits, territories, indigenous leaders and many others in order to make sure that Canadians were going to be protected as much as possible. All of this was done with the goal of being able to get us, as a nation, out of the situation we are currently in.

We have put ourselves in a position where Canada will be able to recover, and recover well. It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party asking about the debt. Many of the things I just finished talking about are the reasons why we have the debt. The Conservatives in many ways are saying we should be spending more money, while the Conservative right is saying we have spent too much money or is asking about the debt. Some Conservatives are talking about the creation of jobs. The most recent Conservative commitment was that they would create one million jobs.

Between 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, and the election of 2019, we created over a million jobs. We understand how important jobs are. Jobs are one of the reasons it was important for us to commit to businesses of all sizes, and small businesses in particular, to get through this difficult time. We knew that by saving companies from going bankrupt and by keeping Canadians employed we would be in a much better position once we got ahead of the pandemic.

I am actually quite pleased today. I started off by looking at the national news. A CBC story said that when it comes to first doses Canada is now ahead of Israel, according to a graph that was posted. When we think of populations of a million or more, Canada is doing exceptionally well. We are ahead of all other nations in dealing with the first dose.

I am now qualified to get my second dose. Earlier today I had the opportunity to book an appointment for a second dose on July 7. Canadians are responding so well to the need for vaccination. We understand why it is so important that we all get vaccinated. We need to continue to encourage people to get those shots.

It goes without saying that we need to recognize many very special people who have been there for Canadians. The ones who come to mind immediately are the health care workers here in the province of Manitoba. They are a special group of people that not long ago, in a virtual meeting, the Prime Minister expressed gratitude for in a very strong and significant way.

Our health care workers, whether the nurses, doctors or lab technicians, and people in all areas of health care, including those providing and sanitizing facilities as well as a whole litany of people, have ensured that we have been there from a health perspective.

We can look at workers involved with essential items such as groceries. Whether it was long haul truck drivers, people stacking groceries or collecting money for groceries, or taxi drivers who took people where they needed to go, whether to the hospital or the grocery store, they were there. Public institutions were there. I think of Winnipeg Transit bus drivers who opened their doors not knowing who was walking onto their buses. They were all there.

This legislation we are debating today is a continuation of getting Canada in a better, healthier position to deal with the coronavirus. We needed to bring in time allocation because of the destructive behaviour of the official opposition. We wanted to work and the Conservatives wanted to take time off. There was an excellent indication of that last Thursday, which was the biggest day in terms of debate for government. The Conservatives attempted to end the session only moments after the day got under way. It is not right that the Conservatives are playing games. We need to pass this legislation. I would ask all members to vote for it.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry. My hon. colleague from Jonquière is absolutely right. I mentioned it, but I used my inner voice. I was unable to speak because my lips were zipped. It happens sometimes and I am very sorry.

You are very kind, Madam Speaker, to give us a chance to share our time. You will not regret it because the member for Jonquière is a great orator. You will be impressed by what he has to say.

Now, for the matter at hand. That reduced the amount of time we would have liked to have in the House. Of course, we must understand that these are extraordinary circumstances. In addition to the pandemic, which is complicating the work that we do in the House and in committee because of limited resources, there is something else going on. I will give my colleagues the scoop. They will be impressed by what I know. We are in a minority Parliament. No one seems surprised to hear that, I see.

This means that an election can happen at any time. Some may expect, and I say so with due regard, that elections may perhaps be called in August, September or October. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister appeared on different television stations. It is as though the Liberals are getting ready. It is as though he had put on his running shoes. It may not mean that he is going to call an election, but it might be about that. Now, we are going to prepare for an election.

There are lots of irons in the fire. A lot of documents are on the table and they just need a little push to be passed. In some cases, it represents the fruit of almost one year's labour. Some bills have been waiting for a long time, and we must try to pass them so we can say that our efforts bore fruit. That is always rewarding.

The Liberals recently told us that they have priorities, including Bill C‑6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy, Bill C‑10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C‑12, Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C‑19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID‑19 response, and Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. Those are the government's absolute priorities.

The Liberals also have two other priorities that they would like to refer to committee. I will not speak at length about them, but I am talking about Bills C‑21 and C‑22. We need to move these bills along.

For reasons it has already given, the Bloc Québécois absolutely wants Bill C‑10 to be passed by Parliament and the Senate, because that is what the cultural sector wants.

Madam Speaker, you know Quebec as well as anyone. You are the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, and there are surely artists in your riding who have called and asked you to help get this bill passed because Quebec's cultural vitality depends on it.

Quebec's culture is very important; it is the soul of a nation. This bill must be passed. Quebeckers are calling for it, the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for it, and my colleagues know that Quebec's cultural sector is waiting for this bill. We want to be able to accomplish this goal we have been working so hard on.

Unfortunately, we must face the fact that the Liberal Party is in power. I have been in Parliament for a year and a half. I was expecting to be impressed. I thought it would be impressive to see 338 members of Parliament capably and efficiently managing a huge country. As I watched the Liberals manage their legislative agenda I was disappointed on more than one occasion, and even very disappointed at times. They did not seem to want to get anything done. It never seemed as though they were taking things seriously.

For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked very hard on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act regarding the COVID-19 response. We held 11 meetings and heard from 20 experts at all levels, and we finished drafting the report after the Liberals had introduced the bill.

If I were a sensitive guy, I might have thought I had done all that work for nothing. It might have hurt my feelings. Think of how much work went into coming up with solutions to help the government draft a smart bill. Instead, the government chose to introduce its bill before the committee had even completed its study, without even looking at what we had to say. To top it off, the government waited another three months to bring it up for debate, and that debate lasted just four hours.

Then it decided to move time allocation because the matter was suddenly so urgent despite the fact that the government spent just four hours on it over the course of five months, choosing instead to engage in three months' worth of obstruction at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which wanted to move the bill forward but was working on prorogation and had asked the Prime Minister to appear.

Once the obstruction was over, we asked if we could carry on with our work, but the government accused us of delaying the committee's work when it was actually the Liberals who stalled things. Once again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had to get to work on Bill C‑19 at the last minute.

That is how the government is managing its legislative agenda, and I could go on about that for hours. On Bill C‑10, the committee wanted the ministers to appear but the government stalled, forcing the committee to wait and obstructing the committee's work. When we were finally able to begin, we were like excited puppies waiting for visitors, but the government said we were too late. However, it is the government that has created the problem we are facing today. We are being squeezed like lemons, and the government thinks that if the committee members are not studying an issue, there is something wrong with them. This is what happens when the legislative agenda is not managed properly.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we want to move things forward for Quebec.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented.

The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on.

We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary.

We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about.

Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work.

There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House.

When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition.

I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate.

My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it.

The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government.

Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee.

What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was.

I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time.

Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage.

If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo.

I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass.

That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee.

Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate.

The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward.

We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together.

I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that.

We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction.

Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition.

On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it.

We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating you and thanking you for all that you have done. The fact that you have been there for so long attests to your sense of ethics, professionalism and collegiality, among other things. Thank you once again, and congratulations for all that you have done.

In response to my esteemed colleague's question, this afternoon, we will continue the debate on the NDP's opposition motion. This evening, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members' Business, we will have a series of speeches and then proceed to the passage of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, at third reading.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin with the second reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms, and then, in the afternoon, we will move on to third reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy.

As for next week, on Monday, we will resume second reading of Bill C-21. Tuesday will be an allotted day. Wednesday, we will proceed with Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures. Debate on that bill will continue on Thursday and Friday.

Congratulations once again, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleague for her question.

Criminal Code

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today to Bill C-21, hoping that I can bring a calm and reasoned approach to this discussion. All parties in the House are united in their desire to get rid of gun crime in Canada. The question is, what is the best way to go about doing that?

We know that we need to be fact- and evidence-based. In fact, the Liberal government is always talking about how it is fact- and evidence-based, but in this particular discussion, it has missed the mark.

We know that 95% of gun crime in Canada is illegal guns and guns used illegally. What does Bill C-21 do to address illegal guns coming into Canada? The answer is, nothing. What does Bill C-21 do, then, about guns used illegally? The answer, again, is nothing. In terms of trying to address gun crime in Canada, this bill misses the mark.

If we look at the 261 gun-related crimes that happened last year, 60% of those were committed with handguns that are already prohibited or restricted. One in four homicides was related to gang activity. If we look at the people who were arrested for illegal firearms offences in 2019, the Toronto chief of police said that the 326 people charged with firearms offences are free on bail. Even when people commit a crime, we are not enforcing the law, and the penalties are reduced.

If we look at an approach of what we ought to be doing to reduce gun crime in Canada, the first thing is to address the illegal guns coming into the country. I am sad to note that the Liberal members voted against a private member's bill from the member for Markham—Unionville that would have introduced measures against illegal guns coming into the country.

Certainly the point has already been made today that we need to step up the effort at the border, because we know from the statistics that most of the guns coming in are coming in from the U.S.A. There is a role to play there. I know that the National Police Federation has called on the Government of Canada to increase the funding to the RCMP border integrity program to enable dedicated and proactive RCMP investigative weapons enforcement activity in order to address gun crime at the border.

Another issue that Bill C-21 does not address is organized crime and gangs. We have heard the statistics about one in four homicides being related to gang activities. This is something that has not yet been addressed.

What does Bill C-21 actually do? There are a number of things in the bill, but basically, for firearms that have already been banned for lawful gun owners, they are allowed to keep them but there is no defined compensation yet. Again, this is a measure that comes against people who are abiding by the law, and now the government is punishing them. They are not allowed to use these guns, and they are not going to be compensated. Nothing has been put forward on that.

At the same time, the Liberals are trying to remove the provincial authority for the chief firearms officer to “approve, refuse, renew and revoke authorizations to carry” and to give that power to a federal commissioner of firearms, another “Ottawa knows best” kind of strategy coming from the government.

In terms of importing ammunition, the government wants to add additional requirements for a licence to import ammunition. Again, it is always focused on people who will obey the law, and what it is missing is the main point that criminals do not obey the law. They do not obey the existing gun laws, and they would not obey these new guns laws. They would not obey a requirement to have a licence to import ammunition. The naïveté needs to stop, and we need to start with reasoned approaches to actually address the issue.

The municipal ban that is proposed by Bill C-21 has actually been opposed by many of the mayors across the country. The government ought to listen to mayors who are saying that this is not municipal jurisdiction. The RCMP has the expertise in this area, and that is where the power should rest.

At the same time that the government is implementing things that will not do anything about gun crime in Canada, we also see that it is introducing other bills, like Bill C-22, that will reduce the penalties for crimes committed with guns. I cannot even imagine why Liberals would think about doing that.

Bill C-22 repeals several minimum penalties. Let me read the list: unauthorized possession, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, reckless discharge, discharge with the intent to wound or endanger, and robbery with a firearm. Why would we ever reduce the penalties for those very things that are part of the problem of gun crime in Canada, which is the thing we are trying to solve?

At the same time, Bill C-22 would also eliminate a number of offences that would be ineligible for conditional sentencing, such as sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for material benefit, abduction of people under 14, motor vehicle theft, and arson for fraudulent purposes.

Again, we are trying to solve the problem of gun crime in Canada: illegal guns, guns used illegally, and the kind of organized crime and gang crime activity that is related to all these illegal activities. We have a huge issue of drugs in the country, so we should definitely be putting our money there.

I see that my time is drawing short, and yes, I am going to get to my points. There has also been an allegation that suicide is a reason for the banning of weapons for lawful gun owners, that it would really do something about suicide in the country. I would offer that people who are going to kill themselves, sadly, are going to find other ways: hanging themselves, slicing their wrists, taking pills.

We see a huge increase in suicide in this country. In fact, because this pandemic has gone on so long and the Liberal government has failed to get a plan to exit, we have seen a quadrupling of suicides. Instead of the 4,000 people a year who typically commit suicide, if that is quadrupled, the number of people dying from suicide is approaching the number of people dying from COVID-19. This is why it is important for the government to focus its efforts there and, if it really wants to eliminate suicide, get us a plan to exit this pandemic, absolutely.

The undefined buyback program needs to be clarified so that we can actually comment on it. Right now it just looks like weapons will be banned and there is no defined plan, but the plan is likely to be very expensive and it looks to me like the initial estimates have underestimated what that cost will be.

All in all, Bill C-21 misses the mark on eliminating gun crime in Canada. I want to summarize by saying that the problem is illegal guns and guns used illegally. Bill C-21 does nothing about illegal guns. It does nothing about guns used illegally.

What do we need to do? Let us step up the efforts to keep illegal guns from coming into the country and the penalties associated with being involved in gun smuggling, and once those people are convicted, let us keep them in jail and not let them back out on the street with their weapons again.

Let us make sure that we focus on organized crime and gang activity. I think there are resources that would be better applied there. In fact, the National Police Federation said that we should divert from the monitoring activities on lawful gun owners that we spend on and put some of those resources into crime prevention. That is a very good thing to do as well.

At the end of the day, all of us want the same thing. We all want to eliminate gun crime in Canada, but Bill C-21 does not do it.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

For this debate, I am adding my thoughts to those of my colleagues from Lakeland and Provencher, who have already pointed out what is wrong with Bill C-21's wrong-headed idea of firearms policy.

The member for Lakeland, who serves as the shadow minister of public safety, has done an incredible job in exposing many of the fallacies and misconceptions in how the Liberal government deals with firearms. After doing so in this House, she received a shockingly bad and partisan response from the Minister of Public Safety. That says it all about how Liberals are handling this important issue.

Simply put, the Liberal government proposes to take firearms from co-operative, law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop the flow of illegal guns to dangerous criminals and gangs, which is where the crisis is coming from in the first place. Of course, violent crime with illegal firearms is happening in Canada and has especially been a growing concern for certain cities.

There is a lot more to say about the alarming rise of rural crime as well, which has to do with a completely different set of circumstances for citizens and law enforcement, but today I will focus on a basic principle the Liberal government is totally missing.

Instead of targeting law-abiding Canadians and firearm retailers, the government should be investing in police anti-gang and gun units, and in the CBSA, to provide law enforcement with all the resources it needs to stop illegal smuggling operations and get dangerous criminals and gangs off our streets. This is a common-sense approach that would proactively save lives and prevent crime.

In his speech, the member for Kingston and the Islands indicated that rather than deal with high rates of crime, we should just ban guns instead and all crime would magically stop. This is the dangerous mentality the government has when dealing with crime. Rather than deal with the actual problem, it chooses to make a splashy announcement that sounds like it is doing something, but in reality, it continually harasses law-abiding gun owners, who are the most highly vetted citizens in Canada.

This is exactly the problem with what the Liberals have presented in Bill C-21. They are not directing the necessary effort to where expert advice and data indicate it should be going. If we are not keeping illegal guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, then nothing will change.

If there is any real hope of better protecting the public from these threats, we must focus on stronger enforcement and on deterrence of criminal activity, gangs and illegal gun trafficking. That is what it will take for any new firearms policy to be effective. This is what the experts and professionals are telling us. It is what police departments across Canada are saying when discussing this legislation. I will quote a few prominent members of those respective forces.

Toronto Police Association president, Mike McCormack, said, “There's no way in my world or any world I know that this would have an impact on somebody who's going to go out and buy an illegal gun and use it to kill another person or shoot another person.”

Retired Toronto staff inspector Mike Earl noted, “A handgun ban is ridiculous and doesn’t address the actual problem of criminals shooting up the city. If those people aren't obeying the laws that are already in place, why would they obey a ban?”

Winnipeg police inspector Max Waddell said that, while a ban on all guns might seem like a common-sense approach, banning guns wouldn't necessarily stop gun violence. He explains:

I’ll draw a parallel. Illicit drugs are also banned. Yet we see dramatic increases and challenges around methamphetamine...because it’s that supply and demand force that causes individuals to obtain these firearms whether it’s to protect their drug trade, prevent harm, to use it for extortion. Whatever the criminal element is needing these guns for.

There are many more quotes from professionals, people the government clearly failed to consult while drafting this legislation, or else it would have reconsidered a full-scale ban on handguns. If we think about it for a moment, it is a bizarre move for how it wants to set up such a ban and really shows the major flaw with its entire program.

The government would be creating conditions on federal firearms licences to restrict handgun storage of transport within municipalities that have passed such bylaws. These bylaws would effectively be conditions on licences, which means it would only target lawful Canadians who already have the paperwork and are complying with the rules. This provision would only add more red tape and regulations for law-abiding Canadians, and these would be subject to change from community to community depending on whether a particular municipality has passed a bylaw. This is nothing but redundancy and ineffectiveness, and there are mayors who have already spoken out against this bizarre legislation.

Don Iveson, the mayor of Edmonton said, “it’s not the direction we would go in...to pursue a city-specific ban when the issue of the flow of these weapons and their ties to, particularly, drugs and organized crime is much more than a municipality-by-municipality issue”.

He makes a good point. I am all for the division of powers and decentralized government, but when it comes to tackling gun crime and illegal guns, there needs to be a consistent and national approach.

The mayor of Halifax, Mike Savage, points out what we think would be obvious, but clearly it is not. He questioned whether a handgun ban would successfully counter gun violence in a city because, as he says, “A lot of them are not registered weapons”. These are the same handguns used by criminals. Further to his point, these are firearms and they are not obtained legally.

We need to focus on a cost-effective gun control program that is designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while at the same time respecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly. The reality is that at least 80% of guns used in Canadian gun crimes are illegally smuggled in from the United States, meaning that municipal regulations on law-abiding firearms owners will not change much.

Why is the government not focusing on the main supply for gun crime in this country? If it would have consulted those who are dealing with gun crime on the front lines, this bill would be significantly different. Some of the measures that we all support in this House are going to be mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms, although the government is moving to remove some of those.

We already have strict processes for people who go in to buy firearms. I referenced earlier in my speech that they are among the most highly vetted citizens in Canada because of the process it takes to acquire the certification to be able to acquire and possess a firearm. One of the most important elements this bill fails to address is putting more law enforcement officers on our streets to deal with the illegal guns and the gangs that plague our cities.

A strange part of the legislation has caught many of my constituents off guard with the prohibition of the importation, exportation and sale of all non-regulated air guns that look like modern firearms. In case members in other parties, especially the governing Liberal Party, were not aware, airsoft guns are not real firearms. We do not have to be afraid of them. They are intentionally designed for games or simply for practice in a controlled environment.

Under Bill C-21, virtually all airsoft guns in Canada will be banned based on their muzzle velocity, as well as their similar look to real firearms. Basically, the government want to ban a hobby enjoyed by thousands of Canadians, including many of their own constituents. In all seriousness, this is more than the Liberals being killjoys. This will affect the real jobs and livelihoods of our fellow Canadians.

According to Airsoft in Canada, the Canadian airsoft market is worth $100 million, and more than 260 Canadian businesses are linked to the paintball or airsoft community. Distributors and retailers are left unsure as to what to do with both their current stock and their stock on order because all of it would be rendered worthless immediately if the government goes through with its ridiculous ban.

There is also a lack of clarity on how this would be enforced. Will they be confiscated, or is the government planning a costly buyback plan for these airsoft guns as well? With this example, it cannot get any clearer that Bill C-21 is not serious about tackling gun crime at all. Sadly, this is the superficial response they are offering to Canadians. They are full of distractions and empty rhetoric.

Canadian lives are at stake here. The government had an opportunity to actually listen to the experts, who have all come to agree that any legislation tackling gun crime must be directed at criminals and gangs, but they have chosen to ignore data-driven policies so they can try to score cheap political points. This is something my Conservative colleagues and I cannot play along with. We will continue to demand real action on gun crime so all Canadians can live in peace and security. This can and should be done while fully respecting the rights and freedoms under the law.

There is one other point I want to address. I addressed this when I spoke to the budget earlier this week. One of the biggest discrepancies we face here in Canada continues to be the difference between urban and rural Canadians. This gun ban particularly hits at the lives of rural Canadians because a lot of the firearms that were banned by the order in council are tools that are used by ranchers and farmers. They are actually necessary for their day-to-day operations in that they help to deal with pests. They help them to protect their herds and their livestock.

There is actually a real need for some of the firearms that were banned by the order in council. To arbitrarily use the bore diameter and the muzzle velocity chosen by the government really does not make any sense because it directly impacts the people who are using them for common sense purposes and reasons.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member seems exercised today. I am a passionate advocate myself, so I do not judge that, but I thank him for a lot of the details he gave about his family, his family background and his rant about the public safety committee. Maybe I will ask a question about the details of the legislation, as it seems to me that is what we are supposed to actually be doing today.

I am curious about the member's comments about the hunters he knows who believe they will not be impacted, and that no firearms used for hunting would be impacted by Bill C-21 or by the May 2020 OIC, because the government has built in an exemption for indigenous hunters. Of course, they use firearms for sustenance hunting that are banned under the Liberals' bill, as do thousands and millions of sport shooters and hunters across the country.

One of the other problems, though, is that the government has made it so that indigenous hunters cannot take their firearms to licensed gunsmiths because they are not covered by the exemption. Obviously, that causes a safety concern. It prevents indigenous hunters from being able to use their firearms, and it is a contravention of their section 35 rights.

Will the member fight to fix this?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The Conservatives are obviously not happy about Bill C-21. I think that was to be expected, even though the bill only sets out half-measures, particularly the fact that the buyback program is optional.

Does my colleague agree that, since the government was introducing a bill in this regard anyway, it could have gone with one that was much clearer and that did not alienate people who support the cause, such as those affected by the events at the École Polytechnique?

The House resumed from April 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Public Safety

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the development of a buy-back program for newly prohibited firearms and the government's plan to reduce violence and gun-related crimes.

While the Conservative Party continues to make promises to the gun lobby that will weaken gun control by eliminating enhanced background checks and making military-style firearms more accessible, we are listening to the experts such as law enforcement officers and physicians who treat victims of gun-related violence.

For decades the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has been asking the government to take action and prohibit military assault-style weapons except for police or military use. In fact, the current head of the association said that the measure establishes a balance and ensures the safety of its members when they respond to calls for service. He believes that this does not limit recreational hunting activities or the activities of those who live off the land.

Doctors for protection from guns have said that our ban and the new legislation that increases penalties for gun smuggling and trafficking will save lives.

Speaking of costs, I think it is important to point out the cost of inaction. These weapons, which were designed for warfare, make killing quick and easy. That is why we banned them.

To give just a few examples, these types of firearms were used at the École Polytechnique, the Quebec City mosque, Moncton, the two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and the elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

There has been enough talk and prayers. We took action. Our government recognizes the legal civilian ownership of firearms by hunters, sport shooters and collectors. It is not our intention to unfairly target law-abiding Canadians. We acknowledge them and we respect them.

Accordingly, our government remains committed to implementing a buyback program that provides fair compensation to affected owners and businesses. A contract was awarded to ensure that the program is implemented and managed effectively.

The prohibition is an important step in our efforts to combat gun violence, but it is not the only step.

Street gang violence has had a tragic impact on our communities. In response, our government has given $327 million to the provinces and territories to come up with plans to combat this violence while ensuring that law enforcement has the necessary resources to hold the perpetrators accountable for their actions.

I note that the Conservative Party voted against that funding. In budget 2021 we are also offering to provide $312 million to implement legislation to protect Canadians from gun violence and to combat gun smuggling and trafficking. What is more, $250 million will be paid annually to the municipalities and indigenous communities to protect Canadians from gun violence and support the street gang prevention program.

I would also like to take a minute to talk about the bill that we introduced to strengthen gun control. Bill C-21 represents a comprehensive set of measures to combat gun crimes and establish a legal framework to ban assault-style firearms. I am pleased to be able to share some of the key elements. These measures are long overdue and will help keep Canadians safe.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my kind colleague for his important question.

This afternoon, we will begin report stage and third reading of Bill S-3, regarding offshore health and safety. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-21, on the Firearms Act.

On Monday, we will resume third reading stage of Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. That evening, we will consider in committee of the whole the main estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

On Wednesday, we will consider Bill C-22, on criminal justice reforms, at second reading.

Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

Once again, I thank my colleague for his very important question and wish him a great afternoon.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise virtually to participate in the debate on the budget and to provide the perspective of many Canadians, especially that of my constituents in northern Saskatchewan who feel left out, forgotten and, in some cases, at complete odds with the Liberal government.

It has now been 19 months since I was selected the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. During that time, my team and I have done what we could under the current restrictions to meet with as many constituents, local representatives, indigenous representatives, business owners and many others across northern Saskatchewan to keep in touch with their priorities.

For example, in an attempt to reach as many constituents as possible, my office developed an online survey, targeted through social media to the people in my riding. The results show just how out of touch the Liberal government is with the people in northern Saskatchewan. When given a list of 10 issues and asked to choose their top three, the most common issues identified by the people in my riding were: ending and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, jobs and the economy, and rural and gang crime.

This budget was an opportunity for the government to chart a clear path forward, to introduce a growth and jobs budget that would provide hope for Canadians that the fight against COVID-19 is nearly over, and that we have a path to recovery. Instead, it is a poorly crafted campaign document that plunges Canada so far into debt that my grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for the reckless spending of the Prime Minister.

I want to touch briefly on these top three issues that were raised by my constituents for the duration of my time, starting first with ending and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. As I am sure members have noticed, several weeks ago Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe released a reopening Saskatchewan plan. This plan included vaccination targets by age groups and corresponding parts of the economy and social life that would be opened once these targets were met.

The response in Saskatchewan has been very positive. This has not only encouraged people to get vaccinated, but has done what I think is most important: it has given people hope, hope that this will soon be over, hope that there will be a return to normal, hope that we can once again gather with friends and loved ones, and hope for business owners that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Unfortunately, we have received no such plan from the Prime Minister or his government. We have been asking for months for a plan, for targets that once achieved would lead us on a path back to life as we know it. Instead, we see Liberal minister after Liberal minister stand in front of cameras and pat themselves on the back, while at the same time attacking premiers from across the country.

Speaking of premiers, premiers across Canada came together and had one ask for this budget. It was an increase in health care transfers to deal with the pandemic, and with the hundreds of billions of dollars the Liberals are spending, they could not even provide a commitment to the provinces on this matter. That is a shame.

Next, my constituents ranked jobs and the economy. Unemployed Canadians hoping to see a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for their families have been let down by this budget. Workers who have had their wages cut and their hours slashed hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy have been let down by the budget.

Finally, families who have seen their taxes continually increase over the past six years under the Liberal government and who are struggling to save more money for their children's education or to buy a home have been let down by this budget.

The Prime Minister and the government will tell us over and over again, in fact he did it this week, how the first thing they did was to increase taxes on the top 1% so that they could reduce taxes for the middle class. As someone who has prepared thousands of tax returns over the last 30 years, the vast majority of them for middle-class Canadians, I can assure this House that this is simply not true. I could provide example after example of people whose personal income taxes have in fact increased substantially since 2015.

These are not people who are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I am talking about people who are earning $50,000 to $80,000 a year in family income and who have seen their taxes increase significantly.

Let me move on to jobs. There are two very important sectors in northern Saskatchewan that have been devastated by the government's poor handling of the pandemic, as well as its weakness at the bargaining table. These sectors are the outfitting and tourism sector and the forestry sector. Believe it or not, many members in this House may be surprised to learn that not all of Saskatchewan is flat prairies where one can see rolling wheatfields for miles at a time.

My riding in northern Saskatchewan is home to many businesses and jobs that depend on the forestry sector. The government's failure to secure a softwood lumber agreement with the United States over the past six years has been very difficult for them, and honestly embarrassing for Canada. Canada has not had a softwood lumber agreement with the United States since the fall of 2015, and the Liberal government failed to negotiate softwood lumber into the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement recently.

My very first question in the House, after I was elected, was on this exact issue. Nearly two years later, Canadians have yet to see any meaningful action on softwood lumber by the government. In fact, we are now seeing a step backward with the United States Department of Commerce's announcement last week of increased duties on softwood lumber imports from Canada.

I do not think the Prime Minister nor his ministers understand the importance of businesses like NorSask Forest Products in my riding. This is a lumber mill. It is owned by nine first nations. As I have stated in the House on previous occasions, dividends paid from this entity provide integral funding for critical programs to the ownership first nations. For this mill and many others that are not owned by first nation entities in my riding, these duties are doubling with the announcement last week. The stakes are too high for the government to continue to fail on this issue.

Let me move on to the outfitting and tourism sectors. The government's total failure when it comes to the border with the United States has continued to leave outfitters and other tourism operators in my riding in the dark. These businesses operate during hunting and fishing seasons. They are seasonal businesses, mostly with customers who travel from the United States to enjoy beautiful northern Saskatchewan. As I said before, the government's lack of a plan is severely hampering these businesses and the many other northern tourism operators.

Many will write this off as partisan, however the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been very clear in his analysis of the budget. Not only will a significant amount of the Liberal spending in this budget not create economic growth or jobs, the Liberals and their budget greatly overestimate their growth prediction. To use a very technical term from my days as an accountant, it seems the Liberals may be fudging the numbers to make themselves look better. I am sure it is not the first time and I am sure it will not be the last.

It is very clear that the Liberal government's stimulus fund was more about spending on Liberal partisan re-election promises than creating jobs or growing the economy. With their uncontrolled spending, the Liberals have made it clear that they have no plan to return to a balanced budget. Once again, this is just another example where the Liberal Party is completely out of touch with Canadians. In fact, a recent poll by Nanos found that 75% of Canadians were worried about the growing deficit.

I realize I have used most of my time on the first two issues, so let me quickly comment on the third priority of my constituents, those in northern Saskatchewan, and that is the rural and gang crime issue. The Liberal government has spent more time and energy going after law-abiding firearm owners like hunters and sport shooters than they have on illegal gun importing and organized crime. Tomorrow and next week, we will have more opportunity to debate the Liberals' disastrous bills, Bill C-21 and Bill C-22, that would decrease penalties for dangerous gun, drug and gang-related crime, while simultaneously criminalizing behaviour like hunting, which many indigenous and non-indigenous people in my riding rely on to provide for their families.

It does not take much to notice how the government has failed Canadians. One need look no further than the current NHL playoffs, games south of the border with fan-filled arenas and life returning to normal, while in Canada, my beloved Toronto Maple Leafs are handily putting a beat down on the Montreal Canadiens in front of empty arenas. It is time for the government to admit its failure and introduce a plan to return to normal, one that focuses on jobs and the economy, and does what it takes to keep Canadians safe.

Public Safety

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know that there is no miracle solution. We have to work on all fronts and give the CBSA more resources to fight smuggling. We need stricter storage measures, as we are proposing in Bill C-21, and we must continue to make new investments like those we have made to prevent gun violence upstream. I am thinking in particular of the investments I mentioned in my first response.

By fighting all these facets of gun violence, we will reduce the number of cases of gun violence in Canada. That is certainly our government's objective.

I would like the Conservatives to be less “tough talk and no walk” and finally start supporting these new investments in our law enforcement agencies. These investments are helping us curb smuggling and armed violence and provide our police forces with the right tools in terms of both human resources and technology.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Langley—Aldergrove for his comments today. I had the pleasure of sitting with him on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

This is a very important issue and a reminder that every incident of gun violence in Canada is one too many. We really must do everything we can to combat this type of violence, which we have certainly seen too much of, and our government is determined to fight it.

However, with respect to what the member just said about the theft and diversion of legal firearms, I would like to set the record straight and remind the House that the chiefs of police of Edmonton, Saskatoon and Regina have all said that this is one of the most common forms of diversion of firearms from the legal to the illegal market.

It is also fair to say that, when the Conservatives were in power, their deficit reduction action plan slashed funding for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. They cut the human and technical resources dedicated to fighting gun violence in Canada.

It is equally fair to say that, at every opportunity, the Conservatives voted against more funding for our security agencies and police forces, funding that was intended to better equip them so they could combat diversion and smuggling, which is how weapons get into Canada and end up being used in violent incidents.

Lastly, it is fair to say that, if we look at the Conservative leader's stance on firearms, it is eerily similar in every way to the gun lobby's.

Let us look at what the government has done and continues to do to address gun violence in Canada.

Starting in 2018, we began investing more than $327 million in the provinces, territories and local police forces to better equip them for law enforcement and prevention activities. We have invested in the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to repair the damage done by the previous government, with its decade of austerity and cuts, precisely where it has the greatest impact on our police forces, in the fight against gun violence. Again in 2018, the Conservatives stayed true to form and voted against these reinvestments in our police forces, including the RCMP.

In the 2020 fall economic statement and in Bill C-14, we committed $250 million over five years to municipalities and indigenous communities to help them invest in upstream prevention and intervention programs to reduce the risks of gun violence. Again, the Conservatives voted against that.

In budget 2021, we went even further. On top of the $250 million in the fall economic statement, the government made a commitment to invest an additional $312 million over five years starting in 2021-22. After that, there will be $41.5 million to protect Canadians against gun violence by continuing to support the work of the RCMP and the CBSA.

I hope that this time, the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove will support that. I have only spoken about investments, but we did not stop there. I remind the House that our government tabled Bill C-21, which increases prison sentences for smuggling and illicit trafficking of firearms from 10 to 14 years.

I think this sends a clear message to judges about the importance we attach to these crimes. I hope the Conservatives will support the bill. The bill has a much wider scope, but I unfortunately do not have enough time to go over all the ways in which it helps combat gun violence in Canada.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, as the member is likely aware or will recall, our government invested $327 million into not just the RCMP but the capacity of the provincial and municipal police services to do gun and gang investigations. We have also made significant investments in communities and kids to address the causes of gun crime, all of which the member opposite voted against, by the way.

We are also listening to victims and the police about the need to restrict the access criminals have to guns. That is why, in Bill C-21, we have introduced strong new measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, to remove guns from dangerous situations made deadly by the presence of firearms, and to prohibit a number of weapons that have no place in our society.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kenora for this interesting adjournment debate. It is a topic that concerns us.

To answer the question he asked at the very end, I can assure him that there is nothing in Bill C-21 that takes aim at the vast majority of law-abiding Canadians, whether they are hunters, sport shooters or collectors who obey the law and who have our respect. There is absolutely nothing in Bill C-21 that targets law-abiding Canadians who own guns.

As for the gun smuggling he referred to in his question a few weeks ago, which he addressed to the Minister of Public Safety, it should be noted that Bill C-21 includes tougher sentences for those who are involved in smuggling operations. The maximum has increased from 10 to 14 years. It is rather surprising to see the Conservatives oppose such a measure. As for the bill he talked about in his speech, there was nothing in there that addressed smuggling as such.

Now let us look at what we are actually doing. Next Saturday marks the first anniversary of the measures we put in place to ban over 1,500 models of military-style firearms and their variants.

While the Conservatives listen to the gun lobby, we listened to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which has been calling for such measures for decades, as have many civil society groups. Last May, we took extraordinary and necessary steps to ban more than 1,500 models of military-style firearms. These are weapons that were designed not for hunting or sport shooting, but for tactical situations for their effectiveness on the battlefield. They have a lethal character that makes them inappropriate for civilian use and makes them too dangerous in our society. That is why we decided to ban them on May 1, 2020, and I am very proud of that.

Last month, we introduced Bill C-21 to make further headway in our fight against gun violence. This bill will complete the ban on military-style firearms, which have no place in our society as I mentioned. Once passed, the bill will help reduce domestic violence and prevent suicide with the implementation of a red flag and yellow flag regime. These measures will allow individuals and the authorities to act more quickly and remove weapons from individuals who are a danger to themselves, society or their families.

The bill will help fight the criminal use of firearms and their diversion to the black market by requiring that a firearms licence be presented to import ammunition and by giving police organizations greater powers to share information when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a licence holder is supplying weapons to criminals. It is a measure that the Conservatives should support. We are surprised that they are not supporting these types of measures, which are enshrined in Bill C-21.

The bill will also create new offences for altering a gun's cartridge magazine and for depicting violence in firearms advertising.

In short, we believe it is essential to reduce firearms smuggling and trafficking in Canada to make our communities safer. I sincerely hope that our opposition colleagues will help us pass this bill, which, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, will also amend the Criminal Code to increase the maximum penalty of imprisonment for smuggling and trafficking firearms from 10 to 14 years. That is important. It sends a message to all judges about how significant these types of offences are and how seriously we take them because they have very clear impact on violence in our communities. I would certainly like to see my colleague from Kenora support Bill C-21.

This bill will also prevent people who have been arrested for smuggling from entering Canada by amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

I see that my time is running out. We could continue to talk at length about the good things that Bill C-21 has to offer, as well as the investments our government has made in budget 2021 to provide more resources to police authorities, whether the RCMP or border services, to combat trafficking and smuggling.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, we promised Canadians we would strengthen gun laws. One of the things we are doing is we have examined the three ways in which criminals gain access to guns. They are smuggled across our border, they are stolen from lawful gun owners or they are criminally diverted, where people buy them legally and sell them illegally.

That is why we have introduced Bill C-21, which would bring in new strong measures and new resources for law enforcement and for communities to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.

Frankly, I would urge my colleague from across the aisle to stop advocating for those who manufacture guns and start concentrating on public safety.

Criminal Code

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-21, even if just for a couple of minutes today, and I will continue the next time it is before the House.

I am very pleased that this legislation has come forward, and I say this as somebody who has a lot of hunters in his family. My mother comes from a family of seven children, and all three of her brothers are hunters. One owns a hunting lodge property that he hunts on near Westport, Ontario. My father-in-law comes from a hunting and fishing lodge, where he, his father and grandfather, three generations, trained hunters. They brought people from throughout North America to Plevna, Ontario, where they hunted and fished.

I was very pleased to see, and to have heard from my family members, that the bill does not concern them. Because of some of the fearmongering from various organizations and political parties, a lot of concern was raised by them. However, once I was able to sit down with them and explain exactly what the situation was, they did not have an issue with it. Quite frankly, they do not believe in guns that are designed to inflict the maximum possible human damage, and they are not interested in using them when they are hunting at a hunting and fishing lodge or when they are sport shooting.

There is a real complexity to this, and I am trying to understand where the Conservatives are coming from and why they seem to be so opposed to it. I have started to put some of that together in my mind, which I plan to share when the bill next comes back for debate. It is important that we start to look at why the Conservatives are so opposed to this, and look at some of the actions they have taken along the way to get us here. I look forward to doing that the next time the bill is before the House.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his passion for safety for children, youth and the citizens in his riding, and indeed right across Canada.

I too want to extend my sympathies to those who have lost loved ones, and I share regrets for folks who have lost their lives due to gun violence.

I appreciate that this member stood with Conservatives to support C-238, because it was a common-sense measure that actually attacked gang violence and gun violence in a meaningful way. Bill C-21 does not do that. If it did, we would be taking a hard look at it. We would be supportive of this bill, but as Bill C-21 stands, it will do absolutely nothing to address the violence he is talking about.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-21, and I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, for sharing his time with me today.

Keeping our communities safe is one of the primary responsibilities of government. Whenever we find ourselves lying in bed or walking in a park, or are at work or in a classroom, every Canadian should be able to live without the fear of violence. To that end, Canada has some of the strictest laws in the world when it comes to firearms.

Indeed, Canadian firearms owners are among the strongest advocates for firearm safety and common-sense firearms laws. To me, that makes sense, but when left-leaning governments want to be seen as cracking down on gun violence and gang activity, law-abiding firearms owners take the brunt of their focus and become the target.

The problem with that approach, of course, is that registered firearms owners are not typically the ones committing any acts of violence. This means that a credible approach to tackling gun violence needs to focus on the criminals and gangs who have no regard for Canada's firearms laws and who use illegal guns in the commission of violence. Any other focus is simply virtue signalling and window dressing.

The reality is that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms. At least 80% of the guns used in Canadian gun crimes are illegally smuggled in from the United States. This is not particularly shocking, given that Canada and the United States have the world's longest undefended border. We are also aware that it is considerably easier to purchase firearms in the U.S. This is a reality that we must recognize in any Canadian legislative response.

Bill C-21 does not take these facts into account, which is why I was pleased to support my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, who put forward Bill C-238 to amend the Criminal Code to increase penalties for those alleged to be in possession of a firearm unlawfully imported into Canada and to increase the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession of such weapons.

During his speech on his bill, the member shared that he met with community leaders and law enforcement and asked them what steps the federal government ought to take to make the community safer. This was his response:

The thing I heard over and over at these meetings was that organized crime was behind the shootings, and the streets are flooded with guns smuggled from across the border. Mostly they are handguns because they are easy to smuggle, hide and carry. That should not be shocking news to anyone. Our farmers, hunters and sports shooters are not fuelling a crime wave. The shootings are gang-related, with innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.

Bill C-238 was a common-sense bill that would have taken real action to address the serious issue that we are talking about today. However, the Liberals voted against it. They actually helped to defeat it. It was a bill that would have imposed tougher sentences for criminal smuggling and on those who were found in possession of illegal firearms. If the Liberals had wanted to show that they were serious about gun violence, they should have supported Bill C-238.

Then we have Bill C-22 on the heels of Bill C-21. It was introduced by the Liberals only one day after Bill C-21. In Bill C-21, the Liberals claim to be cracking down on gun violence, and in Bill C-22, the Liberals are proposing to repeal minimum penalties for firearms-related crimes such as unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm or weapon that had been trafficked, discharge with the intent to wound or endanger, and robbery with a firearm. These are all part of what Bill C-22 is proposing to reduce the minimum sentences for.

How disconnected does one have to be to introduce, one day, a bill that would supposedly crack down on gun violence, and the next introduce a bill that would reduce penalties for gun crime?

I speak regularly with local firearms owners. These individuals know and understand the value of well-crafted firearms legislation.

They understand their responsibilities as firearms owners and they respect the rules that are in place, but they do not understand why the Liberal government continues to target them knowing full well that the problem does not lie with them, but with criminals and gangs.

It is not just firearms owners who do not understand this. Law enforcement voices have also raised concerns. The National Police Federation said, “Costly and current legislation, such as the Order in Council prohibiting various firearms and the proposed buyback program by the federal government targeted at legal firearm owners, does not address these current and emerging themes or urgent threats to public safety.”

The head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said, “The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They're very strict.” He added:

There are lots of law-abiding citizens out there who do possess guns for very legitimate purposes. When you look at the steps you have to go through to possess a firearm in Canada, it's actually quite rigorous. Once you do get a license, the actual purchasing, the transportation, the storage…all of that has very strict laws in Canada.

In my province of Manitoba, Winnipeg Police Service inspector Max Waddell said that while a ban on all guns might seem, and I emphasize the word “seem”, like a common-sense approach, banning guns wouldn't necessarily stop gun violence:

I’ll draw a parallel. Illicit drugs are also banned. Yet we see dramatic increases and challenges around methamphetamine... [because] it’s that supply and demand force that causes individuals to obtain these firearms whether it’s to protect their drug trade, prevent harm, to use it for extortion. Whatever the criminal element is needing these guns for.

Further, Winnipeg Police Service spokesman Constable Rob Carver did not mince words at all. He said Bill C-21 “won't make any difference whatsoever.”

Despite the unequivocal evidence that gun violence is perpetrated by criminals using illegal guns, perhaps the most bizarre part of Bill C-21 is that it goes after airsoft guns.

In rural Manitoba, chances are that people have used airsoft guns personally or at least have family and friends who have done so, shooting cans from across the yard or strapping on a pair of goggles for a friendly match. As it stands, Bill C-21 will ban all airsoft guns outright, most BB guns and some paintball models in Canada as well. This bill would destroy a pastime enjoyed by over 64,000 players across Canada and risk an industry worth $100 million to the Canadian economy. Half the businesses in Canada tailored to these harmless hobbies expect to close for good, causing some 1,500 Canadians to lose their jobs in the process. This is silly and does absolutely nothing to address real gun violence in Canada.

Earlier this year, 36,600 Canadians signed a petition to stop Bill C-21's attempt to shut down airsoft and paintball. Among other calls, they simply asked the government to recognize that airsoft and paintball do not represent any public risk, and that banning them would not improve public safety. Signatories hailed from every province and territory, with Ontario and Quebec making strong showings alongside western provinces.

Canadians are rightly frustrated with this. Why is the Liberal government's plan to take legal firearms off the ranges and ban toys? We need a bill that addresses gun smuggling. We need a bill that goes after gangs. We need a bill that prevents criminals from getting access to illegal guns, and Bill C-21 is not it. Bill C-21 is a smokescreen. The bill would have no impact on the illicit use of illegal firearms in crime. Criminals do not register their guns. They obtain their guns illegally. Gangs do not register their illegally obtained guns.

The Liberals propose to give municipalities the power to create local firearms bylaws. Why would we expect that this bill would have any impact on public safety?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, that is my point. These two bills have to be looked at in conjunction.

On the one hand, Bill C-21 targets law-abiding Canadians by turning them into criminals, penalizing them. On the other hand, Bill C-22 lessens the criminal sanctions on the illegal use of firearms.

It makes no sense, and a Conservative government would do the exact opposite.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member touched on a theme, and I want to ask him a question on it.

The focus of the legislation, I know for my rural constituents, seems to be targeting exactly the wrong people. I note that right after this bill was brought in, the government brought in Bill C-22, which would lessen the sentencing for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, using a firearm in the commission of an offence and possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence. The government is lowering the sentences for those offences committed by actual criminals, while Bill C-21 seems to be targeting the wrong people entirely, the non-criminals.

Could the hon. member please comment on that?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Bill C-21 affects thousands of hunters, fishers and people living in rural areas by making them out to be criminals. This is bad legislation.

With regard to the border, when firearms are not registered, the penalties should be more severe. We, Conservatives, introduced a bill on that, but it was blocked by the government and some opposition MPs. Furthermore, Bill C-21 would weaken penalties for the illegal aspects.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would first like to tell you that I am a granddaughter and a cousin in a family of hunters and fishers. In my view, Bill C-21 is not an attack on responsible gun owners and hunters. My colleague also mentioned this in her speech.

The bill deals with two different issues; one is firearms trafficking, and the other is possession of firearms by criminal groups. It is possible to reduce crimes committed with illegal weapons and to counter the proliferation of legal weapons at the same time.

With respect to criminal groups, I would like to hear more from my colleague about the importance of ensuring better control of firearms trafficking at the border.

This is something several groups have called for to ensure that we are protected against criminal organizations.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the Minister of Public Safety will deny it. He will get angry too, along with many Liberal MPs. They will do that instead of replying to the substance of their policy, their own legislation.

Listen to the minister's response this week when answering my Conservative colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe during question period. He said:

There is no gun registry in the country. It is one of the reasons in the legislation we have brought forward that we will require people who are in possession of these now prohibited weapons to register them properly, so we can have a precise calculation of where these guns are.

By the minister's own description of the legislation, the Liberals intend to resurrect a long-gun registry.

That is not all. The bill misses its mark elsewhere and will waste resources in other ways as well.

Bill C-21 hopes to set up a voluntary purchase program, what Liberals call a “buyback” of the firearms the government made illegal last year. What is Ottawa proposing to purchase? It is lawfully obtained firearms as well as heirlooms and tools. Many are worth thousands of dollars because of their rarity, age and calibre.

The Minister of Public Safety recently said that the government did not know how many firearms would fall under its confiscation program, yet he also claimed elsewhere that in the range of 200,000 firearms, at an average cost of $1,300 per firearm, would be covered. At the low end of estimates, this will cost taxpayers somewhere in the range of $250 million, but other experts have said that the Liberals' voluntary confiscation program could cost the treasury billions of dollars.

As many members know, under the current Liberal government, our country's national debt surpasses the debt of every other government before it since Confederation. To the Liberals, a few more billion dollars wasted is not something to worry about. That is because they believe the budget will balance itself.

For some reason, the Liberals believe that creating more red tape for law-abiding firearms owners in confiscating their property will somehow stop gang and gun violence in Toronto. They are so confident this is a proven solution that they have even introduced another terribly flawed piece of legislation, Bill C-22, which doles out softer sentences for criminals who commit offences with a firearm. The Liberals are soft on crime. They are more concerned about standing up for the so-called rights of criminals than defending our communities.

We on this side of the House believe that victims of crime should have the first claim on our compassion. We also believe laws should achieve results, which Bill C-21 would not do. Indeed, Bill C-22 would even make communities less safe.

Unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives know our justice system must put more emphasis on responding to victims than catering to criminals.

The crimes the Liberals hope to prevent are committed by criminals who will never follow the laws and regulations of legal firearm ownership in Canada. Despite the Liberal order in council firearm ban last May, there were 462 Toronto shootings in 2020, an increase over 2018. After the Liberals brought in their firearms ban last year, the precursor to Bill C-21, the rate of shootings in Toronto did not go down but up. Why? Because law-abiding gun owners are not the source of gun crime in Toronto.

As a Conservative MP in 2012, I was proud to vote to abolish the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. It cost taxpayers almost $2 billion, yet it did not protect the public from gun crime. Instead, it needlessly targeted law-abiding Canadians and tied up police resources.

The Conservatives went further than simply abolishing it. We also enacted tougher legislation on the illegal use of firearms, something I know we tried to pass in this Parliament as well, but was voted down by opposition parties.

As well, the Conservatives also made changes when they were in government and the data collected on firearm owners from the long-gun registry was destroyed so that a future federal government could not resurrect it after promising not to do so. One could say that the Conservative government passed measures 10 years ago to stop Liberal tricks. I say tricks, because in the last election, we saw Liberals across the country, especially in rural ridings, promise that a re-elected Liberal government would not bring back the long-gun registry. However, the Minister of Public Safety's answer in question period shows otherwise; that Bill C-21 would create a new registry.

As the member of Parliament for New Brunswick Southwest, I represent thousands of law-abiding firearms owners. Each was schooled on how to use firearms responsibly, how to care for them and how to store long guns. Each was approved by the RCMP to purchase, own and use his or her firearms legally.

These law-abiding citizens already follow some of the world's strictest laws pertaining to firearm ownership. They are moms and fathers, grandparents, sisters, brothers and, in some cases, kids. They are friends and they are neighbours. They pay their taxes and follow the rules. They enjoy spending their leisure time at a range or hunting deer, birds and moose in the woods.

These law-abiding firearm owners strive to follow all the rules and regulations on firearm ownership as outlined by the RCMP. Safety for them is not an afterthought but the chief objective whenever they use a firearm. I have seen this first-hand, as I have gone shooting with them on many occasions.

People should not take my word for it. They should go to the range themselves and watch. For every person, it is safety first. It is always about safety first. Why? Because they are responsible Canadians.

As well, many of them are legally allowed to possess restricted firearms. Under the Firearms Act, the RCMP scans their names through the Canadian Police Information Centre every single day. I did not misspeak. Every single day, checks are made.

Unfortunately, to the Liberals, these men and women are threats. They are practically criminals in their eyes. The act of them legally purchasing a firearm is seen as dangerous. The Minister of Public Safety has taken it upon himself to overreach into provincial authority and attempt to confiscate legally purchased property at taxpayer expense.

Bill C-21 as well as Bill C-22 are flawed bills that are poorly thought out and make our communities unsafe.

After the tragic killings in Nova Scotia last year, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety shared a briefing with parliamentarians. Those who joined the government's technical call on the Liberal order in council firearm ban last year will recall the exchange. When asked, “Would anything announced today in this prohibition have changed what occurred in Nova Scotia and how he accessed those illegal firearms?”, the parliamentary secretary for Public Safety replied, “C'est pas l'objectif”. That is not the bill's objective.

Other than using a national tragedy to vilify and harass law-abiding firearm owners, what would Bill C-21 achieve?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my colleague from Provencher.

At about this time last year, the Liberal government announced at the start of the COVID health crisis, when Parliament was shuttered, that by using its vast regulatory powers it was banning the use, sale and importation of more than 1,500 makes and models of legally purchased firearms. This was done without Parliament's authority and without a vote or even a debate among MPs. It was, in my opinion, undemocratic, and in the eyes of many it was an illegitimate order.

Law-abiding firearm owners follow it, as they must and always do, but many feel their democratic rights have been stripped away. The Liberals turned hundreds and maybe thousands of my constituents, and many tens of thousands of responsible law-abiding firearm owners across Canada, into criminals overnight with the signing of this regulatory order.

Today we debate Bill C-21, which builds on the government's regulatory order and will continue to target and harass Canadian hunters, farmers and recreational firearm users. What Bill C-21 will not do is improve public safety. Worse, the federal government is using Bill C-21 to resurrect the failed Liberal long-gun registry.

The Minister of Public Safety will deny it. He will get angry too, along with many Liberal MPs—

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of my constituents in Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois as the public safety critic.

Gun control is not a simple subject. People cannot seem to agree on it. It evokes strong emotional reactions from some people and brings up extremely bad memories for others. It is a sensitive subject that deserves proper consideration. Although gun control does not please everyone and there are different ways of going about it, we have a social responsibility to control firearms in order to keep people safe. That is our duty as elected officials.

I have to say that we have been waiting for this gun bill. We have been waiting for it because the Liberals clearly and unequivocally promised to improve gun control during the 2019 election campaign. It was a firm commitment that gave many people a glimmer of hope.

My thoughts go out to the survivors of the shootings our country has seen in the past few years. My thoughts are with the lives lost to handguns or military-style assault weapons. My thoughts are with the loved ones and families of these victims. We are fighting for them, but also to ensure that tragedies such as the ones at the Quebec City mosque, Polytechnique and in Nova Scotia never happen again. There are others, but I will leave it at that. In fact, over the years, there have been far too many lives lost to firearms that have no place in our streets, our homes or in the hands of violent and unstable people.

We were expecting this bill, but we were certainly not expecting it to be so flawed. It seems the Liberal Party did not consult anyone in drafting this bill, because nobody is happy. Not the gun lobby, not friends and family of victims of mass shootings and not law-abiding gun owners who feel their rights are being violated.

Unfortunately, this bill is nowhere near good enough. It just passes the buck to others, such as municipalities across Quebec and Canada. This bill does not fix a thing. The most it does is make a few improvements to existing laws. It has a number of flaws that I will get into, but before I go there, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of the bill even though it is so deeply flawed for the reasons I mentioned.

I want to reiterate the importance of legislating gun control. Voting against the principle of this bill would mean tossing it in the trash without even giving it a chance to be improved and amended. The Bloc Québécois is willing to work and collaborate with the Liberal Party to make the bill more restrictive on some points and more logical on others. Despite our differences of opinion on how to get there, I think it is important that we come together and work together to ensure a safe environment for all Quebeckers and Canadians.

I truly believe in collaborative work. Perhaps it is my naivete, as I am still in my early days in politics, but I believe in it and I hope to never stop believing in it. I hope I never become a cynic, because the ultimate goal—I hope and believe—is the same for all parliamentarians in the House: to keep our people safe. We debate with one another through our ideologies, our politics and our turf wars, but what we ultimately want is for our constituents to be safe. However, as long as weapons that were designed specifically for the battlefield are in the hands of civilians on our streets and in our homes, no one is safe, unfortunately.

I want to thank the members of Poly Remembers. I communicate regularly with them, and I want to thank them for their long struggle. I want to speak on their behalf and say that they are so exhausted by this 30-year struggle. They feel betrayed by the Prime Minister of Canada, who obviously did not keep his word. On many occasions, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada looked the victims and their families in the eye and promised to prohibit military-style assault rifles.

Unfortunately, that is not what he is doing with this bill. Unfortunately, assault rifles are not banned, contrary to what the Liberal Party is saying. Only some popular models are banned. Most of these models will no longer be in circulation, but the current owners of these weapons will be able to keep them at home. The bill will not prevent someone who already owns one of these newly banned weapons from committing a crime. It is a half measure which, in my opinion, comes after another half-measure announced last May, prohibiting about 1,500 models of military-style assault rifles, while hundreds of models are still in circulation.

I should point out that there is no official definition of “assault weapon” in the Criminal Code, which makes banning them more complicated.

For examples, should all semi-automatic long guns be considered assault rifles, or only semi-automatic long guns with detachable magazines? This is a valid question and it should be clarified.

The government may have created its list based on the weapons used in mass murders in recent years, hoping to grab some headlines. However, based on the reaction from various groups advocating for controls on assault weapons, the government's announcement was clearly not a success.

When the government issued the ban last May, it committed to creating a buyback program. We figured that a federal government buyback program for military-style assault weapons would be mandatory for legal owners. We expected something similar to what was done in New Zealand.

In response to the Christchurch massacre in 2019, the government of New Zealand, a country of 4.8 million people, launched a buyback program that apparently brought in more than 61,000 firearms and more than 188,000 parts. Before the initiative, police had estimated that there were between 55,000 and 240,000 of the newly prohibited firearms in the country.

These newly banned weapons belonged to some 32,000 gun owners who received a total of $100 million New Zealand, or approximately $87 million Canadian, in compensation for complying with the legislation, so we see that the program was relatively successful. It is certainly better than a voluntary buyback program.

What guarantee is there that the owners will sell their weapons back to the government in good faith? The people who acquired these types of weapons completely illegally are certainly not the kind of people who are going to raise their hands and politely hand their guns over to the government in exchange for a few hundred dollars.

That is what I do not understand about the government's measure. By not making the buyback program mandatory, the government has made it completely voluntary.

Philip Alpers is an associate professor at the Sydney School of Public Health in Australia and a gun control expert who has studied buyback initiatives. In a recent Canadian Press article, he said that optional programs, as opposed to compulsory ones, have a greater chance of missing the mark of making communities safer. In fact, many studies show that a voluntary buyback is the most likely to fail.

He talked about how arms buyback programs in Australia and New Zealand, for example, not only prohibited certain firearms but also included stiff penalties for those who did not turn in their weapons. The fact that these programs included penalties for those who did not turn in their weapons made all the difference in those two countries. Right now, as written, Bill C-21 would allow owners to keep their weapons under certain conditions, including safe storage. This clearly shows how important it is to make the buyback program mandatory.

During a press conference, the Minister of Public Safety said that the Canadian government did not know how many military-style weapons were in circulation in Canada, which is why it did not make buyback mandatory. That makes absolutely no sense because, if he is not sure those people will turn in their weapons, then what makes him think they would even register them?

PolySeSouvient called for a mandatory program last May when the new order in council was announced because, it held, “each weapon that remains in private hands constitutes a risk”. It is important to note that most of the mass shootings in Canada were committed by legal gun owners. That is important to keep in mind when deciding whether to make a buyback program mandatory or not.

Last March, exhausted by the struggle it had been waging for so many years, the group PolySeSouvient said that if the Prime Minister did not significantly amend his bill, he would no longer be welcome at the Polytechnique memorial ceremonies. PolySeSouvient sees the bill as a “smokescreen” that would place an additional burden on individuals, in other words, legislation that unfairly targets responsible gun owners but not criminals. I could not agree with them more.

Introducing Bill C-21 was nevertheless a great way to bring the ban full circle and move forward with a legislative ban on military-style assault weapons, as promised by the Liberal Party during the 2019 election campaign.

I will not mince my words. Not only does this show how untrustworthy the Liberals are on this issue, it proves that they are not taking it seriously. First, the Liberals are not keeping their word. Second, they continue to pretend that a voluntary buyback program will actually curb the gun problem in this country. We must not kid ourselves.

The fact that weapons do not need to be rendered inoperable for storage when people choose to keep them in their homes is also enormously problematic. At the very least, weapons should have to be disassembled before being stored, which would make their immediate use much more difficult.

Even if regulations prevent people from using their newly banned weapon, if they have it within reach when a conflict occurs, nothing would prevent them from causing irreparable harm.

That is not the only thing in this bill that does not make sense.

Members will recall the 2019 election campaign, during which the leader of the Liberal Party would tell anyone who would listen that he was the candidate who would bring in stricter gun control measures in Canada, unlike his Conservative opponent, who would eliminate these measures. That was an election promise, made to distinguish his party from the other major party.

Once the Liberal Party came to power, it started looking into how it could keep its promise and satisfy one side without losing too much support from the other. The Liberals then had a genius idea. Since they had committed to introducing gun control measures, they could simply delegate that task to municipalities. If that plan worked, all the better, because the Liberals would have kept their promise. If the plan did not work, it would be the municipalities' problem, not the Liberals'.

In Bill C-21, the federal government is asking some 5,600 Canadian municipalities to implement their own handgun storage measures in their jurisdictions, whether it be storage at home or within municipal borders. The ban could go so far as to prohibit the transportation of weapons within the municipality. This means that the 5,600 or so Canadian municipalities could decide to implement completely different measures.

There are about 1,400 municipalities in Quebec. In my riding of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia alone, there are 56 municipalities and two indigenous territories. You will travel 15 kilometres if you start at Sainte-Angèle-de-Mérici in the interior and travel to Sainte-Flavie, which is on the river, going through the village of Saint-Joseph-de-Lepage and downtown Mont-Joli, which is one of the four largest cities in my riding. In those 15 kilometres, there could be four different handgun regulations.

It would seem that the government floated this idea without thinking it through. Also, I have to say that municipal budgets are quite tight. The government is ready to throw this whole thing in their court without telling them when, how or why. It would leave to others the task of passing thousands of totally disparate and inconsistent regulations. That would be a real fiasco.

The Liberal government is completely shirking its responsibilities. It is clear that it has no intention of banning handguns.

Right away, the City of Montreal criticized the fact that the government was missing a golden opportunity to enact legislation that would establish clear, consistent, effective rules for the country as a whole. Montreal mayor Valérie Plante reiterated her demand and called on the federal government to help implement better gun control measures just days after a 15-year-old girl was killed in a shooting in Saint-Léonard. That was Montreal's fifth homicide of the year. She was an innocent bystander who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, according to media reports. The City of Toronto had more than 462 shootings in 2020. The problem of illegal weapons changing hands and often ending up in the hands of young people is now back on the agenda. This is a scourge, especially in Canada's big cities.

Bill C-21 does not resolve that problem. The government is promising to combat gun smuggling and trafficking, but it is not necessarily putting more resources at the border. Obviously, we know that guns do not magically find their way into the hands of young people. Nearly 250 prohibited weapons were seized in Dundee in March, and a 24-year-old man was arrested. He owns a house that straddles the U.S. border in an area that is historically known for smuggling because of its geographic location. Heaven knows what other young people could have ended up with those weapons. This shows just how real smuggling and trafficking are, and not just in the big cities. It is also happening in our regions, like in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield.

To come back to handguns, we see that, once again, the government did not consult anyone before introducing the bill, certainly not the cities. The Union des municipalités du Québec, or UMQ, also spoke out against some provisions of the bill, including the fact that the government is attempting to transfer responsibility for handgun control to the cities when that does not fall under their jurisdiction. The cities obviously do not want to take on that responsibility. The UMQ joined its voice to that of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités, which has also spoken out against this tactic. Others quickly joined them, including the mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labeaume, and the mayor of Gatineau, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, who said they were disappointed with Ottawa's plans. That says a lot.

Then the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously approved a motion calling for this power to be delegated to Quebec City rather than to the municipalities. The idea of implementing a single regulation that would apply to Quebec as a whole, rather than thousands of different ones, has been relatively well received. That would obviously suit the federal government, which would get to offload its responsibility either way, so that seems to be the ideal situation.

There is a problem though. The Government of Quebec appears to have agreed to the motion too hastily and may not be too keen to re-engage in this kind of debate after the intense negotiations over the gun registry a few years back.

Furthermore, the Quebec government, like that of any other province, can already pass legislation or regulate handguns within its borders if it wanted to. The federal government would not necessarily have to delegate that power. It should be noted that this is not on the Quebec government's political agenda either.

As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I would normally be in favour of delegating more powers to Quebec. This time, however, this really bugs me. I get the impression that the federal government wants to cut and run. The government was the one that committed to controlling handguns, so it should be the one taking action, instead of punting responsibility to whoever will take it. It should just keep its promises.

I want to come back to the problem of illegal guns. Most of the handguns used by gangs and criminal groups are illegal, whether they have been stolen from citizens or not. We need to make these weapons harder to access here, while also stopping imports of illegal firearms at the U.S. border.

Leaving it up to municipalities or provinces to ban guns within their borders does not solve the problem. Ottawa would have to ban handguns nationwide to have any effect. However, Ottawa does not have the political courage and prefers to delegate.

I just want to clarify that since the beginning of my speech, I have been talking about handguns and military-style assault weapons. Twelve-gauge and 10-gauge hunting rifles are not covered by last May's ban or this bill. Hunters can continue to hunt without fear. Killing an animal for food is not the same as using a weapon that is capable of firing off dozens of bullets within seconds and that is explicitly designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.

We are also talking about guns that can easily be modified to make them even deadlier. Those are the guns we want banned, and I completely agree with the government on that score.

However, the bill sidesteps the problem. The point is to ban assault weapons, not for the purpose of preventing sport shooters from using them at shooting ranges, but for the purpose of preventing people from being killed. Unfortunately, we see that this bill only prevents sport shooters from safely using their guns and does not prevent massacres.

I also want to touch on another problem created by this bill. We were shocked to see that the government was trying to restrict paintball and airsoft activities through a provision that considered certain replica guns used in these activities as prohibited weapons.

Once again, the government made things up as it went along and did not consult stakeholders, which is what I heard from the Fédération Sportive d'Airsoft du Québec. Gun shop owners were not consulted either. They often sell their products to police forces, but overnight, they found themselves saddled with hundreds of newly prohibited weapons, with no instructions from the government on what to do with them. The bill was introduced quite some time after last May's ban. It has been a few months since the bill was introduced, and gun shop owners still do not know what to do with the hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of stock gathering dust on their shelves.

Coming back to replica assault-style weapons, there is some basis for the government's desire to ban them. Police officers could resort to lethal force if they are called to a scene where they believe a real weapon is being used, which means there is also the risk of collateral damage to innocent people. We owe our police forces our unwavering support.

The government could have looked at what is being done elsewhere. For instance, in the United States, air guns must have an orange tip on the barrel, which helps identify them as imitation firearms. Requiring clear markings on replica guns would be an adequate compromise, and at committee, we will definitely ask the government to look at this possibility rather than abruptly banning an activity enjoyed by hundreds of Quebeckers. I agree that the government must provide greater oversight over the sale of paintball and airsoft guns, but it could do that while respecting those who practise these activities safely.

After consultations with Quebeckers from across the province, gun control advocacy groups, gun rights groups, gun shop owners, hunters, sport shooters, paintball and airsoft enthusiasts, and firing range owners, it is clear that this bill is definitely flawed.

To reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech, even though we would like to throw this bill in the trash and start over, time is running out and we should at least give it a chance. That is what we will do in committee. However, I want to be transparent. If significant changes are not made to the bill, or the bill is not changed at all, and the buyback program for military-style assault weapons is not made mandatory, we will simply vote against the bill.

I would like to remind members that the Liberal Party promised many times to ban assault weapons and restrict handguns. It is not keeping either of those promises with this bill as it now stands. The Bloc Québécois is prepared to work with the government to keep our fellow citizens safe.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to join in the debate in this virtual sitting of the House of Commons on Bill C-21, which is obscurely named an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments on firearms.

I first want to say that what New Democrats want is for Canadians to be safer and feel safer. What we do not want is a polarization and a politicization of an issue that should be about public safety. Unfortunately, it deteriorates fairly rapidly into a debate about something else. We understand there are differences of opinion as to how best to make Canadians safer, but we do not want a clash of cultures. This is not a debate about cultures; this is a debate that ought to be focused on public safety.

I sat through two Parliaments before the previous one and heard issues debated regarding gun safety and the long-gun registry and it was not very helpful, frankly, in terms of gun safety and people's safety. We are in a situation now where the banning of assault rifles is one of the two most important measures. This is not about gun culture, hunting, law-abiding citizens or anything like that. We know there are efforts to talk about law-abiding citizens and I agree that most of us are law-abiding citizens, but the reality is that guns are a serious problem in our society. There have been mass shootings and I can go over some of them.

In December of 1989, we are all familiar with the horrendous events at École Polytechnique, where 14 were killed and 14 injured. In August of 1992, there was a massacre at Concordia University and in 1996, in Vernon, B.C. there were nine killed. In January 2017, we know about the Quebec City mosque shooting in Sainte-Foy, with six dead and five injured. Last April, there was the horrendous event in Nova Scotia, where 22 were killed and three injured. We know that these things happen and that they are likely to happen again. If something can be done to reduce the danger of this happening, then we should do it.

The two most important measures that deal with gun violence are the ban on military assault-style weapons and assault weapons with those kinds of capabilities and the empowering of municipalities to restrict or ban handguns within their boundaries. Both measures are ones that New Democrats have long supported and, in the case of the municipal handgun ban, were even the first to advocate. These measures would provide some support and defence against the possibilities that someone, in the case of assault rifles, who may have an obsession, grievance, hatred or some form of mental imbalance or anger associated with that, could cause mass deaths in a very short period of time, causing significant and horrendous death and loss of life of innocent people. As was pointed out, these guns have no use in our civil society. These are military weapons designed to be effective killers of people and New Democrats support the ban of these weapons.

We also want this legislation to receive the largest support possible in the House of Commons and largest level of acceptance by the general public. We know there is significant public support for a ban on assault rifles. A May 2020 poll said that 82% of people support a ban on the possession of assault-style weapons by civilians, 87% of women and 88% of Canadians aged 55-plus support a ban on military assault-style weapons and 87% of Canadians agree that the federal government should increase funding to suppress the smuggling of assault-style guns into Canada. Of course, this is another measure that we have been advocating for for at least a decade, that smuggling enforcement has to be improved considerably.

We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety say that measures have been taken, but they are very late in coming and they are not even installed properly yet. In fact, going back to 2014, over 1,000 Canada Border Service Agency agents were removed from service and have not been replaced by the government since it has been in power, since 2015. That is something that is seriously deficient in the response that has taken place.

We will have committee hearings. There are serious concerns that have been raised by groups that have been advocating for victims of mass shootings. They have come forward and said that they do not believe that the Liberals are very serious if they are not prepared to put measures in place that take the long-term effect of removing these weapons seriously.

The so-called “grandfather clause” that allows people to keep weapons for potentially 20 to 60 years, despite the fact that they are prohibited weapons, is something that causes people to be concerned about how serious the government is in actually changing things, particularly when we already have a commitment from the Conservative Party to reverse that ban and therefore the lobbyists are encouraging people not to participate in a voluntary buyback program.

The minister's parliamentary secretary and the previous speaker suggested that a study of the New Zealand situation proved that only 40% of guns were actually returned in a voluntary buyback program. I do not believe that is an effective and proper analysis of the facts. The only figure that is based on is a figure put forth, unverified, by the gun lobby suggesting that there were 170,000 assault-style rifles in place. The other evidence shows that as a result of the buyback program, there has been no change in the price on the black market for assault-style weapons and there is no indication that this has not, in fact, been effective in reducing and eliminating further actions of that nature in New Zealand.

In fact, a ban in Australia was very important in effecting change for what happened in 1996, the Port Arthur massacre, that killed 35 people and injured 23. A national firearms ban was put in place and placed tight controls around automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Since then, there has only been one mass shooting since 1996, defined as more than five killed. However, between 1978 and 1996, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, proving that the ban would be effective.

This is another failure of the government. There are other aspects of this bill, and I think the previous speaker touched on the red flag laws. We need to hear about the effectiveness of them. It looks to me that they can be effective in improving the possibility of getting guns out of the hands of people who may be an immediate danger to themselves or others. That is a very positive thing, but we do need to hear evidence on that because there are some of contrary views as to whether they are proper and able to do an effective job in that.

We have also a need for consultation from these groups. We need to also hear from another group that has a great deal of interest in this legislation and I am speaking here of the airsoft industry. It has come forward after being effectively put out of business by this legislation without any notice, without any consultation and without any alternatives. The failure to consult with other groups in the preparation of this legislation was also evident in this area because there are possibilities of using regulation as a different method of control in the airsoft industry.

For those who do not know, it is akin to the paintball industry. It is called airsoft because it is essentially an air gun that is used in recreational activity. Many of them are replicas of other styles of guns. We have legislation and regulation within the movie industry to allow it to use replica guns in film work with licences and regulations.

There is no reason to believe that regulations could not be developed in consultation with the airsoft industry to allow that industry to continue in a regulated fashion. That is something that may or may not be able to be done with committee hearings. It may be something that ought to be put off for further consultation.

This legislation was brought in after the order in council, very quickly after the Portapique massacre in Nova Scotia last year. We do not think that sufficient consultation was made, with all of the things that are contained in this legislation. We do need to have a closer look at much of what is in this legalisation. There is a lot of detail here.

I would like to hear that the government is prepared to be serious about considering other ways of ensuring that if we are going to have a ban on assault rifles, it is going to be an effective one that would be permanent in nature. It has been suggested, for example, that instead of having a compulsory buyback, if people wish to keep these assault-style rifles because they are collectors and want to have a display and show them to their friends, etc., there are methods of rendering them inoperable. It has been suggested that might be an alternative to the grandfathering clause, which would be quite easily overturned, rendering ineffective the measures that the government has taken.

It is not something that I think ought to be left lingering. We do not control the future, obviously, but to have a measure that provides legislation that lingers for decades but is not effective for that period of time is something we need to avoid.

The bottom line here is that we have legislation that meets the need to ban assault rifles, to make it more difficult to use, to be put into place. We hear as part of the discussion, and we have already heard it here this morning, talk about law-abiding citizens. The law-abiding citizens are people who do not break the law. There are many people who are law-abiding citizens until they are not law-abiding citizens anymore.

The research on gun violence shows that, for example, in the 16 deadliest mass shootings in Europe, and this is five-year-old evidence, between 1987 and 2015, 86% of the victims were shot by a licensed shooter. In at least 29 American mass gun killings since 2007, 139 people were killed by licensed firearm owners. To look back to Canada, of the firearms seized from Canadians who were violent, had threatened violence or were subject to a prohibition order, 43% were registered to licensed gun owners. In New Zealand, another example from far away, half the perpetrators in both non-fatal firearms-related domestic disputes and in gun homicides have been licensed gun owners.

It is not a panacea to say that we are dealing with law-abiding gun owners and there is no problem, because law-abiding gun owners are being affected by this. In fact, the individual who drove from Manitoba to Rideau Hall last July with a cache of guns had these guns legally. He said he was coming to arrest the Prime Minister, in part because of the gun legislation being brought forward.

We are not talking about one category or another here. We are talking about protecting the public and making the public safer. We are talking about assault-style rifles. One of the prohibited weapons from last year's order in council was held by this individual from Manitoba.

We have to get away from this whole issue of talking about attacking one group of people versus another. The emphasis has to be on public safety. The emphasis has to be on finding a way to ensure that we have the broadest public support possible for the legislation, by focusing specifically on the assault-style rifles and trying to do something about handguns, which are predominantly a city problem, by giving the authority to the municipalities to have some control over that. It may not be perfect, but it is better than what is there now, which is nothing that is actually controlling this.

Yes, there has to be more enforcement. Yes, there has to be a crackdown by the police on activities in cities. We have already heard from some municipalities, like Vancouver and Surrey, that are interested in this. Toronto has spoken favourably about it. These are areas where handguns are a particular problem and a danger to public safety. If this will help, then we should provide the mechanism so that it can be put in place.

Having said all that, I will be interested in comments or questions from my colleagues. I think this legislation is in the right direction, but it needs to be looked at very carefully. We need to make sure that it is actually going to be effective and that it is not going to be an overreach in an area like the airsoft industry, for example, which might be able to be more properly regulated.

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

Madam Speaker, we are here to debate Bill C-21, which is important legislation to protect Canadians. Having had similar conversations, I would encourage the hon. member to speak to people like Dr. Alan Drummond, who can talk about the issues with, as I said, largely rural, white males who are dying by suicide.

It concerns me greatly when the Conservative Party of Canada only talks about guns and gangs, which is an important issue that we are dealing with, and ignores the issue of death by suicide.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in this important debate, and I am proud to be part of a government that takes action on gun control to keep Canadians safe. In the last Parliament I was able to work on Bill C-71. I am proud of that work, and I am proud to continue that work with Bill C-21.

This legislation would introduce some of the strongest gun control measures ever seen in Canada. It would complete the prohibition of assault-style firearms, it would lay the foundation for a buyback program, and it would take needed action in a number of areas critical to improving public safety, including limiting or prohibiting access to firearms for those who pose a risk to themselves or others, fighting gun smuggling and trafficking by strengthening measures at the border, increasing maximum penalties for certain firearms offences under the Criminal Code, combatting the unlawful use of firearms in diversion to the illicit market, and strengthening the rules for those firearms that are indistinguishable from legitimate ones.

Bill C-21 is good news for the public safety of our communities, our institutions and our most vulnerable citizens. It would also add new tools that could be used toward reducing needless deaths from family violence and suicide. I would like to recognize the work of those who have repeatedly stressed that the focus of action on firearms needs to be on those who die by suicide and are victims of femicide and domestic violence. 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. In conversation with the Lethbridge YWCA, the group told me every single woman who came to their shelter had been threatened by a partner with a firearm. Over the past five years, nearly 2,500 women had been victimized by partners with a firearm.

My work with local organizations in my riding and across the country has helped to shine a light on the dangers of gun violence. Many women are afraid to report the threats of gun violence they face, or the illegal guns their partners own, and while shelters such as Halton Women's Place provide supports for women while they are at the shelter, women are at their most vulnerable for gun violence once they leave.

Bill C-21 would be the first step in removing guns from the hands of abusive partners, but we must remain committed to engaging and encouraging women to report illegal guns and abusive partners and ensuring they have the support needed. Too often, survivors are without support in the justice system, and this must change.

Our government proposes to invest $85 million to help ensure access to free legal advice and legal representation for survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence, no matter where they live. This investment is good news, but we must also continue to work with women's organizations that help survivors of domestic abuse and gun violence find safety from abusive partners. Intimate partner violence accounts for 28% of all police-reported violent crime in Canada, and that number has risen during the pandemic.

Of 945 intimate-partner homicides that occurred between 2008 and 2018, eight in 10 involved female victims. One woman or girl is killed in Canada every other day on average, according the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability. We have it in our power to help reduce these senseless deaths and this tragic violence. Bill C-21 is not a panacea: It is a tool that we must use, in conjunction with investments like a national gender-based violence strategy, to reduce this hateful violence.

There were 580 individuals, overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly rural, who died by firearm suicide. Dr. Alan Drummond and Dr. Eric Letovsky of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians have been vocal in saying that we must do more. Over 75% of firearm deaths are deaths by suicide. Introducing a mandatory reporting mechanism for doctors to call the police to remove guns from at-risk patients immediately is a recommendation I heard from them, and is worth exploring if it is in federal jurisdiction.

The bill contains key new measures that could limit or prohibit access to firearms for those who pose a threat to themselves or others. Bill C-71 took important steps in that direction with lifetime background checks that take into account intimate partner violence and online behaviour. These provisions must be implemented as soon as possible, but they are still insufficient methods for preventing a dangerous situation from becoming deadly. If someone suspects an individual with access to firearms might pose a danger to themselves or others, authorities only have limited power to intervene. With Bill C-21, we would introduce red- and yellow-flag laws.

A red-flag regime under the Criminal Code would empower both law enforcement and all Canadians, including those organizations that support survivors of abuse, to take action. If someone is aware of a potentially dangerous situation, they would be able to apply to a court to order an immediate temporary weapons prohibition order. There would also be judicial discretion to order the immediate seizure of firearms.

This means that any member of the public, including a family member or caregiver, could take action if there were reasonable grounds to believe that an individual should not have access to firearms. These include online behaviour. A person would also be able to apply to a court for a temporary access limitation order to prevent someone who was subject to a weapons prohibition order from accessing firearms possessed by another individual. The weapons prohibition order could require the individual to surrender to law enforcement the firearms in their possession. It could also be accompanied by a search and seizure order.

In the United States, 19 states and the District of Columbia have enacted extreme risk laws, and these have been effective. A recent study in California details 21 cases in which this law was used in efforts to prevent mass shootings.

Recently, I hosted a round table on Bill C-21 with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and stakeholders in my community. We heard from representatives of Sheridan College, a local post-secondary institution, who voiced their concerns about how areas of congregate settings such as colleges are vulnerable to mass shootings and gun violence. Bill C-21 is a good step towards protecting our students on campus. Those at the round table expressed some concerns about the need to do more. They talked about the need for judicial education on domestic violence and coercive control if these red-flag laws are to be effective.

I have heard from a number of individuals and organizations that have either lost someone to gun violence or support survivors. They say that these red-flag laws need to be strengthened. I am committed to learning from them, and I am grateful for their future contribution once we start to study this proposed legislation at committee. We will invite advocates with lived experience, and they will bravely tell us about the worst day of their lives and why we need to take stronger action. It is incumbent upon everyone at that committee table to listen with an open heart and hear about what we, as parliamentarians, can do to make sure other families are not faced with the same devastating news that they have lost a loved one due to preventable firearms violence.

These red-flag provisions are one tool that aligns with Canada's strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence. It builds on current federal initiatives, coordinates existing programs and lays the foundation for greater action on this critical issue. The strategy is organized across three pillars: prevention of violence, support for survivors and their families, and promoting responsive legal and justice systems.

Gender-based violence is one of the most pervasive, deadly and deeply rooted human rights violations. The bill before us is paramount to the creation of strong and safe communities for everyone, and we have seen support for these measures.

Jan Reimer, a former Edmonton mayor and now executive director of the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, said that the legislation proposed is:

...a step in the right direction.... We see women being threatened with a gun. It's one of the major, if not the major, causes of death for women in domestic violence relationships. Better control doesn't take anybody's rights away, but it does protect women's rights to safety.

Bill C-21 is one more tool we can use to prevent gun violence across our country. I look forward to testimony at the public safety committee from advocates who push us to create and strengthen legislation that protects our communities from gun violence. I am proud to support our efforts to keep Canadians safe.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, that was in fact one of the commitments we made at the request of municipalities across the country. They would like more authority to limit, regulate and ban firearms in their jurisdiction, and that is precisely what Bill C-21 is proposing.

We are certainly listening, and we will always be prepared to work with the provinces, the municipalities and the opposition parties that want to strengthen gun control in Canada, instead of diluting it as the Conservatives keep proposing.

What the Conservative Party is proposing would be a major step backward for gun control. We are always looking for different ways to strengthen gun control. We will work with the municipalities, the provinces and the opposition parties to do that.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton. Today is a big day for her because she just became a grandmother. My congratulations, and I am happy to see her virtually.

To answer her question, it is clear that no single measure will eliminate gun violence in Canada. We have to tackle it on all fronts. It is obviously important to take military-style assault rifles out of circulation, but Bill C-21 includes other measures too.

For example, the bill increases maximum penalties for offences related to firearms trafficking and smuggling. It enhances information sharing among agencies such as the RCMP and local law enforcement services. We are also investing in giving the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP more tools to fight the diversion, illegal importation and smuggling of firearms.

These measures are all important in this fight. We are acutely aware that no single measure will resolve the situation, so Bill C-21 contributes to all aspects of the fight.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will not talk about this in my speech, but I want to comment briefly on what the Conservative Party member just said. One of the important things we are doing with Bill C-21 is increasing maximum penalties for certain offences, such as trafficking and smuggling. We should all keep that in mind as we study the bill.

That said, I appreciate this opportunity to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-21 at second reading. I believe this is one of the strongest legislative packages ever introduced in this country to combat gun violence. It proposes a wide range of measures to help keep people safe and deliver on the firearm policy commitments we made to Canadians during the last campaign.

These measures are urgently needed, because gun violence remains a tragic reality that too often affects our cities and regions. We only have to look at the Polytechnique tragedy, or what happened four years ago at the Quebec City mosque, in my riding, when a killer entered the mosque and murdered six people, leaving many kids fatherless, and injured several others. We must also remember the massacre that happened more recently in Nova Scotia.

No one should have their life cut short so tragically and senselessly in our country. No one should have to live with the pain of losing a loved one to gun violence. That is why our government made it a top priority to protect Canadians from gun violence, including by regulating their use and strengthening Canada's gun laws.

Last May, we took a significant step forward in protecting Canadians by prohibiting more than 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and their variants, which have too often been used in tragic incidents here in Canada and in the rest of North America. The vast majority of firearm owners are responsible and law-abiding citizens, but these powerful and dangerous firearms that we banned on May 1, 2020, were not designed for legitimate activities such as hunting or sport shooting. Rather, they were designed for use on the battlefield and have no place in our cities, on our streets or in our lives.

Bill C-21 goes even further in protecting Canadians. To finish what we started last May when we banned more than 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and their variants, Bill C-21 proposes to amend the Firearms Act to provide a non-permissive storage option to the owners of firearms prohibited on May 1, 2020. That means an owner could choose to keep their firearms but would not be permitted to use them, sell them, give them to someone else or bequeath them. That is far more restrictive than the grandfathering rules that accompanied previous firearm prohibitions in Canada.

According to these rules, grandfathered owners can buy from and sell to other owners who hold the same grandfathering privileges. Some grandfathered firearms may also be authorized for use at a shooting range. None of that would be allowed with respect to the assault-style firearms prohibited last May. They would have to be stored away safely and kept there under lock and key.

This approach would essentially freeze the market for these firearms, while treating existing owners fairly. Over time, the number of prohibited firearms in Canada would decrease substantially, and they would eventually be eliminated. To accelerate that process, and unlike what was done with past prohibitions, the government also intends to introduce a buyback program as soon as possible. Owners who wish to surrender their firearms for compensation as part of that forthcoming program could certainly do so.

It is impossible to know how many people would take the government up on that offer, but it is highly likely that many owners would take compensation in exchange for their firearms. Those who want to retain their firearms as part of a collection or for sentimental value can do so, but as I was saying, they would not be permitted to bequeath them, transfer them or use them.

Failure to comply with those regulations would also result in criminal prosecution. Any prohibited firearm remaining in someone’s possession would, and this is very important, also need to be registered, including those that were previously classified as non-restricted. Regulators and law enforcement would know exactly who the owners are, and where their assault-style firearms are located.

Moreover, owners who choose to retain possession of these firearms would be required to comply with additional requirements. That includes successfully completing the Canadian restricted firearms safety course and upgrading to a restricted possession and acquisition licence, with all the associated fees that would entail.

The requirements I just mentioned, and the permanent inability to lawfully use or transfer these firearms, for any reason, would essentially make those firearms useless. Logically speaking, all of those things would be major incentives to participate in an eventual buyback program.

Removing these powerful prohibited firearms from society is one of the many goals of this legislation. However, it is also important to immediately remove any firearms from potentially dangerous situations, including situations involving domestic and intimate partner violence, an issue that has been compounded by the pandemic. Sadly, there have been too many such incidents in Quebec over the past year. Beyond domestic violence, there are also other situations where a person may be suicidal or has openly advocated hatred or violence against someone.

To respond to these situations, Bill C-21 proposes the creation of red-flag and yellow-flag provisions. These provisions would make it easier for anyone who feels threatened by the presence of a firearm in their home or by an individual who owns a firearm to take action to protect themselves and others.

More specifically, the red-flag regime would allow anyone, not just police, to apply to the courts for an immediate removal of an individual's firearm if they pose a danger.

Similarly, the yellow-flag regime would allow anyone to ask a chief firearms officer to suspend and examine an individual's licence if there are reasonable suspicions that the person is no longer eligible to hold a licence.

I will remind members that these measures build on the amendments made to the Firearms Act in 2019, which establish that a firearms licence applicant's lifetime history of intimate partner violence and online threats are mandatory grounds for consideration in the determination of licence eligibility.

Gun violence continues to be a major problem in our communities. It is important to remember that all firearm tragedies, from the public ones we commemorate to the private ones that occur in the home, create untold sadness and are often preventable. All Canadians deserve to live in a place where they can be safe and secure, and that is the objective of Bill C-21.

As the Prime Minister said, “we need more than thoughts and prayers. We need concrete action.” That is exactly what Bill C-21 proposes: concrete action to stem the tide of gun violence in Canada.

I am very proud to support this bill at second reading, and I hope that my colleagues will do the same so that it can be sent to committee and we can hear what various groups have to say about Bill C-21. For decades now, various civil society groups have been calling for a ban on military-style assault weapons like the one we implemented on May 1, 2020, which will be strengthened by Bill C-21. These weapons were designed for the military and are not appropriate for civilian use. We have seen them used in too many incidents, too many tragedies and too many killings. They were designed for military use and manufactured to be efficient killing machines. They are not used for hunting or sport shooting and have no place in our society because they are too dangerous.

I am proud to be part of a government that, after decades of dithering, finally decided to move forward with prohibiting 1,500 different models of firearms, including the AR-15 and Vz58. This ban essentially froze the market completely as of May 1, 2020, by prohibiting the import, export, use and sale of such weapons.

I would remind the House that the young man who burst into the Quebec City mosque was armed with a Vz58. Thank goodness his gun jammed, but he never should have been in possession of such a weapon in the first place. This is why a ban like the one we proposed on May 1, which is strengthened in Bill C-21, is so important, as are the increased maximum penalties for many trafficking and smuggling offences, and the red-flag and yellow-flag provisions.

I am getting a bit off topic from Bill C-21, but I would also point out the investments we have made to expand our border capacity and dedicate more resources to the community-based organizations working to prevent violence upstream. This is in addition to the resources that have been invested in the RCMP and our law enforcement agencies across the country with programs such as Ontario's guns, gangs and violence reduction strategy.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I literally just said that residents in cities like Toronto and other places, where gangs are shooting up their streets, deserve action from the government to keep them safe. However, this is what the Liberals are doing. They are repealing minimum penalties for unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm, a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, reckless discharge, discharge with intent to wound or endanger and robbery with a firearm.

Bill C-21 would also allow relaxed penalties for sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for material benefit, abduction of persons under age 14, motor vehicle theft and arson for fraudulent purposes.

What is mind-boggling to every Canadian who agrees that government should be protecting his or her safety and security is that Bill C-21 would do nothing about that except target law-abiding firearms owners—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess this is a central question around Bill C-21. What is mind-boggling to me, the Conservatives and law-abiding Canadian firearms owners, collectors, sport shooters, hunters and the people who have firearms in their family collection of heirlooms is that these are the most law-abiding, responsible, vetted, law-abiding firearms citizens. With Bill C-21, the Liberals and its proponents are trying to make the argument that it is about public safety and reducing crimes.

In a situation like Toronto, where shootings have increased since 2014 by 161%, those residents have a right to say that their government ought to be taking action to keep them safe. However, those shootings are being caused by criminals and gang members who do not worry about laws—

The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate on the budget presented on Monday by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-21, the firearms act, at second reading.

When we return on Monday, we will have the fourth and final day of debate on the budget.

On Tuesday, we will resume the second reading debate of Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.

On Wednesday of next week, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).

On Thursday, we will have the first of eight opposition days in the current supply cycle.

Finally, on Friday morning, we will start with a debate on Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, followed in the afternoon by a debate on Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act.

That is all.

Public Safety

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, we promised Canadians that we would strengthen gun control to keep Canadians safe, while the Conservatives obviously promised the gun lobby that they would weaken gun control. That is why we brought forward measures last May to prohibit weapons that had no place in society.

We are working now with legislation introduced through Bill C-21 to make sure that none of those weapons can ever be traded, sold or used in Canada again. Those measures are necessary and strongly supported right across the country. That is the right thing to do to keep Canadians safe.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my good friend.

This afternoon, we will complete second reading debate of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Tomorrow morning we will start with the debate of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), followed by the debate at second reading of Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 in the afternoon.

On Monday of next week, we hope to complete second reading debate of Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. As all members are aware, at 4:00 p.m. that day, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will present the budget. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday will all be days reserved for budget debate.

Finally, on Friday, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and privileged to rise in the House today to present this petition, which was initiated by Nicholas Martin. I am very proud of the fact that there are 36,600 signatures on this petition.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to reject Bill C-21 to save the jobs of thousands of Canadians; fully and unambiguously legalize airsoft and paintball so that citizens and residents can continue to purchase and use that sporting equipment; recognize that airsoft and paintball are safe activities that tens of thousands of Canadians participate in; recognize that airsoft and paintball do not represent any risk to public safety and banning them would not improve public safety; and not needlessly target law-abiding citizens who use airsoft and paintball for sporting purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition on behalf of the paintball and airsoft industries in Canada, in particular Panther Paintball and Airsoft Sports Park in Surrey, B.C. This is a locally owned business that for years has provided employment and a safe place for paintball and airsoft enthusiasts to come and enjoy their favourite games and sports. The employees and participants are very concerned that the measures in Bill C-21 will put an end to this business, this industry and the livelihoods of so many participants across the country.

Airsoft and paintball offer Canadians an opportunity to get fresh air and exercise responsibly and in compliance with all social distancing guidelines. To protect all these great things, the petitioners call for the rejection of Bill C-21.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I am pleased to rise virtually in the House to talk about Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Liberals want to amend the Criminal Code to repeal certain mandatory minimum penalties, allow for a greater use of conditional sentences and establish other measures for simple drug possession offences.

Bill C-22 is the Prime Minister's attempt to honour his 2015 campaign promise. Unfortunately, every time we examine Liberal bills in committee or in the House, we find major flaws that suggest they never bother to consult people on the ground. That is the case with this bill too.

It is important to thoroughly analyze what the Liberals are trying to do with this bill, in which the Minister of Justice is proposing amendments that will have major consequences for Canadians' safety and well-being. I will point out various elements of the bill that I think are worth a closer look.

Bill C-22 eliminates some of the mandatory minimum sentences set out in the Criminal Code for offences involving weapons, including firearms. For example, the mandatory minimum sentence set out in subsection 85(3) for use of a firearm in the commission of an offence would be eliminated. The mandatory minimum sentence set out in subsection 92(3) for possession of an unauthorized weapon, whether it be a firearm or other weapon, would also be eliminated.

The bill eliminates all the mandatory minimum sentences set out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The bill creates new provisions that advise the police or prosecutor to consider an individual's drug use and to refer the person to a treatment program. However, it is important to understand that some provinces do not even have drug treatment courts.

Bill C-22 also proposes to eliminate certain provisions of the Criminal Code related to tobacco, particularly the sale and transfer of tobacco products without an official licence. That is another thing that we are trying to understand. Finally, the bill proposes to eliminate some of the restrictions set out in section 742.1 of the Criminal Code so that more offences are eligible for community-based sentences.

Everything I just said contradicts the Liberals' official position on public safety as it relates to firearms. The message of Polytechnique was well understood, with the Liberals always claiming to be doing a lot and much more. However, the reality is that bills such as this hamper the courts and law enforcement and greatly diminish the significance of crime when the opposite should be happening.

We always have difficulty understanding how, on the one hand, the Liberal discourse is about tougher measures when, on the other hand, their actions have the opposite effect. This is totally inconsistent in terms of public safety and the protection of Canadians.

Today we are debating Bill C-22, but we cannot forget Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with respect to firearms. There is no consensus on this other bill among gun supporters, such as owners of guns for sport shooting or hunting, or among those who oppose guns and want them to be banned, such as the Polytechnique advocates. Bill C-21 does not do nearly enough, and the Prime Minister is not addressing the real issues.

Bill C-22 would reduce the sentences for violent gun crimes. We are trying to understand why the government wants to reduce sentences for people who commit gun crimes, when we should be doing the opposite.

I remind members that the Conservatives and my colleague introduced Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to possession of unlawfully imported firearms, which would have strengthened the Criminal Code by addressing smuggled guns and gun crimes. However, the Liberals showed their true colours and chose to vote against this bill. They would rather protect criminals than protect law-abiding citizens.

We cannot understand it. We do not understand how the Liberals can be so dishonest with Canadians when it comes to protection, public safety and firearms. The introduction of Bills C-21 and C-22 is not going to do anything to reduce gun crime. It will also not do anything to reduce the number of guns circulating in Canada, and it will simply not prevent criminals from getting their hands on illegal firearms.

That was made very clear two weeks ago on J.E., a 30-minute investigative reporting program on TVA. I encourage everyone to watch it. Those who do not speak French should find a way to get it translated, because it is really good.

The report clearly showed what is happening with firearms in Canada, how illegal firearms from the United States are streaming right across the border. We have land management problems, our customs officers do not have sufficient resources, and the law does not allow action to be taken in certain areas. Aerial images taken by drones showed traffickers bringing in weapons by snowmobile in the winter and by boat in the summer. If members want evidence, here it is.

Montreal is starting to have the same problem as Toronto. It is easy for street gang members to get their hands on illegal firearms with the serial numbers scratched off, and young gang members are taking pride in committing crimes with the guns that are coming across the border.

Not one of the measures proposed in Bill C-21 and Bill C-22 will solve that problem even though that is what we need to focus on. Instead of helping people with drug addiction, the Liberals are reducing mandatory prison time for those producing and trafficking harmful drugs. Instead of tackling criminal gangs, they are reducing mandatory prison time for those in possession of illegal firearms.

No family should ever feel unsafe in their community, in their neighbourhood or walking down their street. The previous Conservative government pledged to change those laws and keep our streets and communities safe. Before the 2019 election, we released our platform entitled “A Safer Canada”, a three-pronged action plan targeting street gangs and arms trafficking, among other things. We covered it all in our platform.

Then the Liberals regained power. It was fortunate for them that they won the election, but it was unfortunate for Canadians because the Liberals are not doing what needs to be done to protect people and fix the firearms problem once and for all.

To read Bill C-22 we can only assume that the Liberals are incapable of discharging their governmental responsibility to ensure our safety. In contrast, the Conservative government always brought in measures to ensure the safety of all Canadians. The Prime Minister claims he wants to help Canadians, but he is doing nothing to ensure that criminals are brought to justice and answer for their actions.

We as Conservatives support our Canadian justice system as defined by our charter and our Constitution, and we do not support a justice system that would favour criminals to the detriment of Canadians' safety and security.

During this difficult time, Canadians need to know that the government is ensuring their safety and security. The Liberal government needs to show leadership and stand up to criminals. Canadians cannot afford for Parliament to get this wrong. This bill is extremely worrying for our children and for the future of our justice system.

We will do the job that Canadians have entrusted us to do: asking the government questions to ensure that the safety of Canadians remains the top priority.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to speak in the House today regarding Bill C-22.

This last weekend the Prime Minister, while speaking to the Liberal Party policy convention, said that the Conservative Party of Canada was disconnected with Canadians. If the Prime Minister was looking for an example of a party disconnected from Canadians, he need look no further than his own party with the introduction of this bill, Bill C-22, and how it would affect those in rural Canada.

As someone who has lived my whole life in northern Saskatchewan, I not only find this bill dangerously naive, but the government's communications around it are actually offensive to me. Of course, far be it for me to suggest anyone might deliberately mislead Canadians. Perhaps it is simply a poor understanding of the Criminal Code or the tendency to rely on divisive political ideology that led to the inaccuracies in communicating what is actually in this bill.

Contrary to what members of the Liberal Party may have been given as talking points by the PMO to use in the debate, those of us who actually read the legislation understand this is not about reducing mandatory minimum penalties for simple possession of drugs. Mandatory minimums for simple possession do not exist today. This is not about minor crimes, and it is not about minor offences.

Here are just a few examples of what Liberals consider minor offences for which Bill C-22 would eliminate mandatory minimums as they relate to gun crimes: robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, possession for the purposes of weapons trafficking and discharging a firearm with recklessness.

Additionally, Bill C-22 would eliminate mandatory minimums under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that actually target drug dealers. Examples of these are trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and the production of substances included in schedule I or II. Examples of these are heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. This is not, as suggested, help for those who struggle with addictions. It is actually help for those criminals who prey on those people who suffer from addictions.

Finally, this bill would allow for greater use of conditional sentence orders for a number of offences. The list is long, so I will include only a few examples such as sexual assault, kidnapping and assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon, which includes the assaulting of a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon. This clearly puts communities in my riding at risk.

As a lifelong resident of northern Saskatchewan, a hockey coach, a former mayor and now member of Parliament, I have seen first-hand how gun and gang violence, and drugs, ruin people's lives and devastate families and communities. I find myself wondering if members of the Liberal government have been contacted, like I have been, by mayors, chiefs, police officers and community members pleading for something to be done and if that would make them realize Bill C-22 is not a solution. Neither is Bill C-21.

One month ago, there was a story reported in the Battlefords News-Optimist that literally brought me to tears when I read it. I would encourage all members of this House to read the story, as it provides an incredible insight into what life can be like in the northern and often remote communities in my riding.

The story reviews a judge's decision, arguments by the Crown prosecutor and the victim impact statements of RCMP officer Robert McCready and of my good friend Staff Sergeant Ryan How. The incident, as reported, happened in my riding and shows an almost unbelievably violent disregard for human life. It includes multiple guns, pursuits, many other things, and finally, police ramming a vehicle.

In his victim impact statement, my friend Staff Sergeant Ryan How said the following:

When I encountered the gold truck you were in north of Loon Lake the only emotion I felt was sadness.

I knew right away how this was going to end. It’s always the same, just a varying degree of tragedy. When I saw your co-accused run from the Equinox and point what may have been a gun at me, I just felt tired and defeated....

I knew what you would do when you came up to the road block. And you did the same thing every other desperate criminal does - you accelerated and swerved towards the police.

As you did that, I took off my seatbelt and accelerated my truck directly at you. I wanted to be able to at least have the chance to manoeuver in the cab if you and your fellow gang members started shooting at me. As I lined up my truck to yours head-on I fully expected to be shot but I tried to make sure my truck would stay on a straight path and hit you even if I couldn’t steer because you needed to be stopped.... Even after all of this, after hours of chasing after you, hours of being frustrated, angry, and tired, [I] was required to be of calm mind and use sound tactics as I drew my gun on you and the people with you.... At that moment I was furious that it had come to this. I was furious that your stupidity was causing me to miss an important family event going on right at that moment I had you in my gun sights. I was furious that I might have to shoot and kill you.... I didn’t shoot you...My coworkers didn’t shoot you, even though we were taunted and dared to do it by the people in the truck with you. Even though your actions caused one of my coworkers to almost be run over and killed. We made sure you were safe. It was a joke and a game to you. It was life and death for me, for my partners, and the public. I’m telling you that on January 17, 2019, you were lucky to be arrested by some of the most capable and experienced police officers in the country. They showed incredible restraint and professionalism to make sure you lived to be here today.

Another one of those capable and experienced police officers was Officer Robert McCready, who was called in six hours before his shift was scheduled to begin. A short part of his victim impact statement includes the following. He said:

I had been in Loon Lake for a while at that time, and had a feeling that it was probably related to gang activity, firearms or both. I got geared up and found that gang members/affiliates have possible firearms and are driving in two vehicles and are evading police. My thoughts are “great, here we go again.” This was a constant way of life around that area, something would pop off, at least once to twice a week or more.... This went on all afternoon, which took a bad turn when the vehicle started going through a populated area, just as school was letting off, and for fear of worsening conditions, police had to back off again.

In speaking with Staff Sergeant How later, he shared with me how these events had become almost routine. Can members imagine this being a routine part of their day? This is the part that brought tears to my eyes as I fought back the emotion.

Let me be clear, this day was the culmination of a long history, but it had to start somewhere. The idea that government is seeking to eliminate mandatory prison time for drug traffickers and for those who commit violent crimes is really hard to fathom for me. Allowing criminals who commit violent acts to serve their sentences on house arrest puts communities at risk.

For the last couple of minutes, I would like to talk about the issues many community leaders talked to me about. In addition to doing everything they can to combat gun and gang crime, they spend many hours fighting those who traffic drugs in their communities and who prey on the vulnerable who are struggling with mental health issues and addictions. Bill C-22 would make life far more difficult for local law enforcement and prosecutors by reducing and, in some cases, removing penalties for trafficking, importing or producing schedule I or II substances.

Conservatives believe that those struggling with addiction or mental health issues should get the help they need. They need treatment rather than prison time if their crime is not violent. Conservatives support restorative justice policies to lower incarceration rates for overrepresented groups in our criminal justice system, provided that public safety considerations are paramount.

What is clear in Bill C-22 is that the government, driven by ideology and having no basis in the reality on the ground in rural Canada, is making our communities less safe by removing many important tools. I encourage all members to take a long, hard look at the proposed legislation before they vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

It is a privilege to rise and represent the constituents of Red Deer—Lacombe in this debate, who would be mortified, I believe, to know what the legislation is actually proposing to do to our criminal justice system, notwithstanding the words coming from government MPs.

Let me start with a little bit of context. I am the chair of the Conservative rural crime caucus and had the pleasure of helping to create a document in 2018 that we published as MPs from rural Alberta. Virtually every one of my colleagues from rural Alberta participated in this. We consulted and talked to a wide variety of people in our province. We talked to victims. We talked to rural crime watch people. We talked to anti-crime organizations. We talked to victims-of-crime services and to law enforcement experts, and we produced a comprehensive, thorough and multifaceted report, which we then tabled at the public safety committee in the last Parliament. My colleague from Lakeland had a motion in that Parliament talking about rural crime.

I want to remind all colleagues in the House that crime in rural areas, and specifically here in western Canada, is significantly on the rise. It has been shown statistically. One does not have to go very far to look. A document from the Angus Reid Institute published January 10, 2020, shows that crime rates in Canada dropped precipitously from 1991 to 2014, falling more than 50% during that period. However, crime rates have ticked upward over each of the past four years for which data is available, and that trend is continuing. It shows that confidence is waning significantly in our law enforcement agencies, courts and provincial jurisdictions. It notes that it is more significantly happening in western Canada, and in the Prairie provinces in particular.

Colleagues can imagine that the proposed changes to this legislation would be somewhat horrific to my constituents who ask me about it. If anybody wants to read the report, “Towards a Safer Alberta: Addressing Rural Crime”, it addresses a lot of crime in general by addressing rural crime. I would encourage them to do so. It can be found on my website, www.blainecalkinsmp.ca. I would encourage people to have a look at it and see what good work MPs in western Canada have done to bring forward the concerns of our constituents.

I want to talk a little bit about the overall Government of Canada's approach since it became the government in the fall of 2015. I am not going to get into too much discussion about specific firearms legislation in Bill C-71 or Bill C-21, but I will talk about Bill C-75 and now Bill C-22, and the soft-on-crime approach that the government seems to have. The rationale that it is presenting seems to basically undermine the needs of victims in this country, especially when some of these crimes are certainly crimes against people. They are not just property crimes.

What are some of the things that the government has done? In Bill C-75, which could be called the prequel to Bill C-22, the government basically hybridized well over 100 offences in the Criminal Code. To those who wonder what that means, there are basically two ways in which a Crown prosecutor can proceed with charges before a justice. One of them is through an indictable offence. Until this bill came along, it usually carried with it a set of penalties for which there was a requirement to spend some time in jail or in custody. Then there is something called a summary conviction offence, which is the equivalent, I guess, of a U.S. misdemeanour. It usually carries with it a very small sentence or time served in jail, in lieu of being unable to pay a fine of some kind.

Here are some of the things for which the current government, in the previous Parliament, changed the sentences from mandatory indictable offences to hybrids. This allows the Crown to plea bargain away serious offences such as impaired driving, punishment for theft, both under $5,000 and over $5,000, possession of instruments for breaking and entering, selling automobile master keys and other items, enabling theft, possession of property, stolen property obtained by crime and, of course, importing or exporting property.

That just names a few offences. As I said, there were over 110 offences that the government essentially reduced the penalties for. In fact, it would now be possible for someone to get a summary conviction offence for abduction of a person under the age of 16 or abduction of a person under the age of 14. Those were also included in Bill C-75. It would now be possible to pay a fine less than someone would pay for failing to stop at a stop sign. That is the legacy of Bill C-75 in the first Parliament.

Now let us fast forward to Bill C-22 and take a look at what Liberals are removing mandatory minimum penalties or just basic minimum penalties for in the Criminal Code. First, there is using a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence. Interestingly the government is removing Airsoft and paintball guns from possession completely for law-abiding citizens, but if a criminal is using a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, they will now get the pleasure of going home and sitting there, thinking about what they have done. Possession of a firearm, knowing that its possession is unauthorized, is the whole point. Rather than reducing penalties for people who knowingly use or are in possession of unauthorized firearms, the government is instead taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens who are co-operating with the government. It does not make any sense.

More items include possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence. One of the biggest problems we have with rural crime is people going onto properties to steal vehicles, tools and other items that are easily saleable and marketable on the black market. People also, from time to time, go to these properties purposely looking for firearms to steal. Why on earth would the government want to make it less punishable for these types of thieves who are purposefully targeting establishments, casing rural farms and casing our communities?

Why would we reduce the penalties for individuals who are purposefully trying to steal firearms? These firearms end up on the streets of our cities and our communities and end up being used in the commission of offences. This makes no sense, but the government seems to think that this is a good idea.

Here is something we can categorize in the realm of the bizarre. Why on earth would the government remove any semblance of a minimum penalty for someone who was trafficking weapons and firearms? If we listen to police chiefs or victims' services people anywhere in major urban centres, crime is proliferating especially with the use of handguns and firearms in those communities. We know that most of those firearms are obtained illegally through theft or are smuggled across our border. I would think that the government would say it was going to crack down on smugglers, but it would seem that the government is encouraging smuggling while discouraging lawful ownership. Importing or exporting a weapon knowing it is unauthorized is called smuggling. The bill would reduce minimum penalties for that.

The next item is discharging a firearm with intent. Why would we reduce a penalty for somebody purposely discharging a firearm with intent? This makes absolutely no sense. The Liberal MPs are simply misleading the House and Canadians with what their true intent is with Bill C-22, and it is incumbent upon all of us with a conscience in the House of Commons, and with an eye to doing what is right for the law-abiding citizens that we represent, to defeat this irremediable piece of legislation.

[Derek Sloan, Independent, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there has been some concern about the use of mandatory minimum penalties.

There are still, and will remain, if this bill passes, mandatory minimums for various crimes. My concern is, why would some of these serious crimes, these types of offences, like the use of a firearm in commission of an offence, possession of a firearm or prohibited weapon, robbery committed with a firearm, and I could go on, have mandatory minimums removed when some mandatory minimums still remain? This is an issue, particularly in relation to the other laws, such as Bill C-21, which is being implemented to put more restrictions on legal firearms owners.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a government, we are taking steps to try to address systemic racism that is pervasive in our institutions and Bill C-22 is a step forward in the right direction, especially for my riding of Humber River—Black Creek. With this legislation, we are advancing a policy that is truly about keeping communities safe.

We have seen throughout history how certain criminal justice policies have unfairly targeted indigenous peoples, people of colour and marginalized Canadians. Too often these policies were poorly handled and only reinforced the systemic racism, which our government has committed to eliminating in Canada. Let me clear: A justice system that jails too many indigenous peoples, Black people and marginalized Canadians is not effective, does not keep us safe and therefore must be changed.

In my riding of Humber River—Black Creek, I have seen far too many lives derailed by policies that target racialized communities. Too many careers have been destroyed because of a singular bad decision. We are a country that believes in rehabilitation and second chances, but our criminal justice policies have not followed this lofty ideal. That is why I am very proud to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-22 and the fact that the government has brought it forward.

With Bill C-22, we are turning the page on the failed policies of the Harper Conservatives, policies that did not protect Canadians, but, rather, targeted them. The measures in the bill, in conjunction with our numerous other reforms across government, are a critical step forward as we work to eliminate the plague of systemic racism and ensure that our justice system is as effective as it can be, one that is equal and fair to all Canadians. This means removing mandatory minimum penalties that unfairly target low-risk and first-time offenders, which evidence shows us only leads to the over-incarceration of racialized and marginalized groups and does nothing to decrease recidivism.

We want to expand the availability of conditional sentencing orders for those who do not pose a risk to public safety. The availability of conditional sentences means that judges will have the flexibility to determine whether offenders pose a risk to the public and, if so, will allow the offenders to serve their sentences in their communities under strict conditions. Rather than punishing these people for a bad decision, we would instead give them access to treatment programs and other supportive services. The evidence has shown us that our current system only serves to derail the lives of low-risk offenders and the dissolution of the family unit, which is so important, and negatively impacts the families they leave behind.

If we want to promote the rehabilitative nature of our justice system, we must practice what we preach. Giving low-risk offenders access to treatment and support, keeping their families together and keeping them integrated in their communities are proven methods of reducing recidivism. To answer the concerns of the opposition, these opportunities will not be available to everyone.

Serious and dangerous criminals must be punished severely as appropriate to their crimes. For serious and dangerous criminals, Bill C-21 would raise maximum penalties so judges would have the ability to punish the worst offenders. Those who commit serious offences would continue to receive sentences that would match the seriousness of their offences. However, this bill is about getting rid of the failed policies that saw our prisons filled with people who needed help, not incarceration.

Bill C-22 is specifically for low-risk and first-time offenders whose incarceration has proven to do little to protect communities in the long run, but has had a negative impact on the lives of these first-time and low-risk offenders. The evidence is clear that the policies of the past are not working. It is because of the harmful policies of the past that we see indigenous and racialized Canadians overrepresented in our prison populations by orders of magnitude. The policies of the past did not prevent nor deter crime and they did not keep us any safer. What they did was target the vulnerable, racialized and indigenous Canadians. Bill C-22 seeks to address some of these systemic issues, and I am proud to support the legislation.

We also want to provide police and prosecutors with the tools and guidance they need to treat addiction and simple drug possession, not as a criminal justice issue but as a health issue. With this in mind, Bill C-22 takes measures to divert away from the criminal justice system default for police and prosecutors when dealing with drug possession.

In my riding of Humber River—Black Creek, I wonder how many lives could have been altered in a positive way had these already been in place. How many individuals were required to reoffend because they could not secure employment after going through the justice system? How many families were destroyed as a result of the systemic racism pervasive within our justice system?

Bill C-22 would allow us to step away from these questions, because we know that those who are low-risk or first-time offenders will not be put through the gauntlet of the justice system. Instead, young people who have made mistakes or perhaps have turned to drugs as a result of a prior trauma will be able to get the help and support they need rather than just becoming another statistic.

Bill C-22 represents a vital step forward for our country. The changes that would come from this legislation would ensure that our criminal justice system would be fair, effective and would keep all Canadians from all communities safe.

I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support the legislation. Let us demonstrate to all Canadians that we will never stop working to create a justice system that embodies our values. Let us step forward together to end the scourge of systemic racism in our justice system and in all areas of Canadian society.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand once again in this House and participate in an important debate. I plan to address two major themes in my speech. The first has to do with the fact that it seems the members opposite are simply not aware of what is contained in this bill. This bill actually reduces some of the penalties for serious firearms offences. I will get into the specifics of that here in a moment. The second is the larger topic of conversation surrounding being soft on crime and the very troubling trends that we see, not only with this bill, but with some of the larger context of how the government is failing victims.

First, on firearms, I find it absolutely tragic that we are debating firearms in this place in a way that completely ignores the facts. The members opposite will talk about how it is important to ban assault rifles and these military-style weapons, when very few members opposite understand the reality of what they are talking about. The reality is truly a trifecta of misinformation and political rhetoric torqued to the highest extent possible to appeal to a narrow band of political interests that is simply not based on reality.

I have a few examples. The Conservative member for Markham—Unionville brought forward Bill C-238, a bill that was meant to bring many people together to combat a real issue, and that is violent gun crime. However, the Liberals voted against it. How tragic is it that the Liberals, who claim to be targeting law-abiding firearms owners, would absolutely dismiss an attempt by parliamentarians to address some of those issues? It is absolutely shameful.

Second, we see the context of aspects of this debate with last year's order in council banning 1,500 firearms. It was absurd logic. In fact, when I participated in the member of Parliament's briefing for that OIC, the officials who were brought in did not even understand the very basis of the firearms they said they were banning. How absurd is it that we have such a disconnect between the consequences of what I would suggest is a massive overreach of the executive branch, targeting something, and then they torque it up with their rhetoric about how they are somehow taking action on crime? It is shameful, the record of the government.

The members opposite suggest that this somehow does not have relevance to the debate today, which is absurd and again more of their torqued political rhetoric, at a time when they seem to be bent on calling an election in the midst of a pandemic. I would note, as a bit of an aside, that there is a Supreme Court challenge in Newfoundland that has been launched today by an opposition party because of an election there that many would suggest, and certainly this lawsuit suggests, does not have the confidence of the people. It was a Liberal majority, yet the Prime Minister and the government seem bent on stealing power at any cost.

The third aspect of this bill is that it takes the serious criminal offences. Specifically, as I mentioned in the first part of my speech, I want to talk about the firearms side of things. The fact is that they are lessening penalties on serious firearms offences.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-21, literally banning toy guns. They said that was fake news, yet the reality, as we have learned, is that bad legislation creates bad outcomes and does not do what they say they are trying to accomplish. In the same week, they introduced Bill C-22, only a few days later. On Tuesday, they introduced a bill to punish law-abiding Canadians for simply living their lives, in many cases using something that is a tool in many parts of our country.

I come from a rural constituency, where a firearm is a tool like many others. It can be used as a weapon, but so can a baseball bat, a kitchen knife or a van, yet that torqued-up rhetoric based on a blind ideology has labelled so many thousands or millions of Canadians to be somehow criminals.

The same week, only a couple of days later, on a Thursday, the Liberals introduced Bill C-22, eliminating penalties for serious firearms offences. It is absurd that this is what they think they can get away with. Certainly, my constituents see through that absurdity. I hear from Canadians across the country, including the constituents of quite a few members opposite, who are saying they are starting to see through the facade, the political spin that the government is trying to bring on this and how absolutely shameful it is in that regard.

That brings me to the second part of my speech, which addresses some of the other aspects of this bill and the very troubling trend that I would suggest it is setting.

Bill C-22 eliminates a number of those firearms offences and the mandatory prison times, such as robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to harm, and weapons trafficking. Those are the problems, not the law-abiding firearms owners.

The Liberals are also proposing in this bill that criminals could serve house arrest rather than jail time for a number of offences, including sexual assault, in the midst of the conversation around sexual assault in the military. I listened to the testimony on the Bastarache report regarding sexual assault in the RCMP and the revelation of how terribly pervasive that is within our society, yet the Liberals, who talk tough, with their woke feminist Prime Minister, are truly being soft and punishing victims at a time when victims deserve an advocate.

There is also trafficking in persons for material benefit and kidnapping. At a time when we are trying to bring awareness to human trafficking, the fact that the Liberals are punishing victims is absolutely absurd and shameful.

There is a series of other offences where the sentences are being reduced. The trends that are being set are very troubling, such as the soft-on-crime approach and ignoring victims. Meanwhile, we have seen, especially in my large constituency in rural east-central Alberta, a massive growth in rural crime and serious offences that have really affected the way of life of my constituents, the ability of Canadians to feel safe in their homes, and so many aspects of the way in which we live.

The Liberals are going to suggest that somehow we, the evil Conservatives, want to punish people for not breaking the law, which is just Liberal spin. It is unfortunate that it has devolved to the point it has, because it is taking away from the seriousness of this debate. It is quite simple. Conservatives are focused on ensuring that Canada's drug laws target individuals who prey on Canadians struggling with addictions through the trafficking and sale of drugs to the victims of what is an opioid pandemic, which is what those drug dealers and gangs deserve. The member for Lakeland, who spoke prior to me, articulated very well the challenges we face regarding drug use in this country. This is not about punishing a victim; it is about ensuring that those who are responsible for those abuses, the gangs, the drug dealers and whatnot, are punished.

The Conservatives have talked about mental health. We believe there needs to be a clear plan on ensuring there is restorative justice and a plan that addresses and helps victims. That is the clear difference here. We have the hug-a-thug mentality from the Liberals on the other side, and we have the Conservatives, who want to stand up for victims. Bill C-22 is incredibly troubling in the context of the bigger picture and the blatant hypocrisy that exists on the firearms debate.

I would conclude by saying that I cannot in good conscience support this. My constituents have overwhelmingly told me that this is a bad bill. I certainly will not be supporting it going forward.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will split my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Conservatives are the party of law and order that ardently stands with victims of crime and their loved ones, and that applies common sense and outcomes-based principles to protect innocent Canadians from violent criminals who would harm others. Conservatives also take a practical approach and acknowledge that, of course, many offenders will be released back into society. There is a real need to prepare those offenders for release so they do not fall back into a life of crime, as seen in the good work of the member for Tobique—Mactaquac in his Bill C-228, which aims to set a federal framework to reduce recidivism.

However, Canadians also do not want the justice system to be a constantly revolving door. Common sense must prevail for the common good. Canadians, victims of crime and their families deserve to live freely without fear in Canadian society. When violent criminals seek to take that away or revictimize them, the government has a role in ensuring the laws and systems in place are designed to prevent it. The only thing worse than a government that fails in this duty is a government that actually promotes conditions that will ultimately lead to, or frankly guarantee, that violent criminals will strike again.

Bill C-22 gives great consideration to the relief of criminals and offenders, but it is missing any substantive policy or action to care for, protect, or prevent victims of violent crime in Canada. In fact, Bill C-22 would reduce the penalties for many violent crimes, some of which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in Canada.

The first thing Bill C-22 does is build on the Liberals' “guns for gangs only” bill, Bill C-21, which targets law-abiding licensed firearms owners, retailers and even hobbyists who play airsoft and paintball. What is missing from Bill C-21 is a strategy to deal with the root cause of shooting deaths in Canada cities, criminal gangs with illegally smuggled guns.

In fact, Bill C-21 does nothing to protect public safety or victims from violent gun crime and criminal gangs. It lays a heavy hand on law-abiding Canadians who already follow the rules, but takes a hands-off approach to the very criminals and gangs who should obviously be the targets of public safety policy.

Bill C-22 takes the hands-off approach even further. It reduces jail time for violent firearms offences and will not stop the flow of illegal firearms into criminal gangs in Canada. In Bill C-22, the Liberals are telling Canadians these offences are no big deal by reducing penalties for: weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, importing or exporting a firearm knowing it is unauthorized, possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence using firearms in the commission of offences, robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. We should all think about how each of these offences ties into actual violent crime and deaths in Canada.

That is not all. Bill C-22 would also reduce penalties for discharging firearms where it is unsafe to do so, say, for example, in the streets of Toronto, and for discharging firearms with intent, such as in a drive-by shooting, like the one in Montreal two months ago that tragically and horribly killed 15-year-old Meriem Boundaoui.

In fact, Montreal police inspector David Bertrand says his city had a 10% rise in gun crimes between 2019 and 2020, despite the Liberal firearm ban at the time. He says that this is due to the “trivialization” of gun use by criminals and that criminals are “using more guns when committing infractions”.

Bill C-22 plays right into the wrong hands. If the Liberals listened to experts, they would know not to trivialize crimes for which consequences need to be strengthened in order to keep Canadians safe from criminals with guns.

It seems Conservatives are the only ones listening to experts on gun crimes, but we cannot take all the credit for tough sentences for these crimes. Most of the above examples are long-standing and were introduced under previous Liberal governments, so sentences for using firearms in the commission—

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We have already been asked why we would support Bill C-21, which would take certain firearms off the market.

I can understand why he would say that Bill C-21, at face value, appears to restrict or prohibit weapons that are harmless, or, at least, not harmful or the same type we want to restrict or prohibit.

We took the same approach with Bill C-21. We said that it needed to be studied in committee and amended. If my colleagues want perfect bills that can be passed as soon as they are introduced, I encourage them to immigrate to Quebec. Once we become a sovereign nation, we will have excellent pieces of legislation. The only thing we can do now is study the federal government's bills, and there is no question that they need amendments.

We have to study them in committee so that we can hear from experts and get people to reconsider poorly worded bills. My colleague is right; Bill C-21 must be improved.

I do not believe that people playing with toy guns need to be sent to prison. When I was a kid I played with guns and I did some things that my children and grandchildren may not be able to do today. I do not see how I, or anyone else, could have been sent to prison for such activities.

My colleague is right: Bill C-21 needs to be improved, and so does Bill C-22.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find this kind of interesting. Bill C-21 potentially throws airsoft firearms owners and paintball gun owners in jail, while Bill C-22 literally allows criminals and gangs to run free, those same gangs that do drive-by shootings.

Bill C-22 eliminates mandatory prison time for those who commit armed robbery. Can the member confirm that he supports the elimination of mandatory prison time for someone found guilty of an armed robbery?

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

Madam Speaker, I am speaking this afternoon to Bill C-22, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Liberals have advertised this bill as a response to the disproportionate number of Black, indigenous and other marginalized Canadians caught up in Canada's criminal justice system. They have advertised this bill as removing what they have characterized as unfair and disproportionate mandatory jail time for what they claim to be minor offences. The Liberals have repeatedly advertised in that regard that Bill C-22 eliminates mandatory jail time for simple possession. On its face, it all sounds pretty good. The only problem is that Bill C-22 is not as advertised by the Liberals.

The bill has very little to do with helping marginalized Canadians and persons who are struggling with drug addiction, as the Liberals have advertised. It has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating mandatory jail time for simple possession, because there is no mandatory jail time for simple possession. Rather, Bill C-22 is about the government advancing a radical, ideological agenda that is not evidence-based. It is based on putting the rights of criminals first. Through its false advertising, this cynical government in a cynical and dishonest way is seeking to change the channel from what the bill is really all about. Quite frankly, I believe the more Canadians learn about Bill C-22, the more alarmed the vast majority of Canadians will be.

It is true that this legislation does eliminate mandatory jail time, but it does not eliminate mandatory jail time for so-called minor offences. Rather, the bill removes mandatory jail time for some extremely serious offences, including serious firearms offences.

What sorts of firearms offences does this legislation eliminate mandatory jail time for? Those offences include robbery with a gun, extortion with a gun, discharging a firearm with the purpose of inflicting injury, weapons trafficking, using a gun in the commission of an offence and possession of a gun obtained in the commission of an offence. I could go on.

I say this to the government, through you, Madam Speaker: How does that benefit or help marginalized Canadians? The simple answer is that it does nothing in that regard. Instead, it helps give a free pass to dangerous criminals.

This is quite ironic because this is the government that talks a lot about getting tough on guns and gun crime. When the Liberals talk about getting tough on guns, what they really mean is getting tough on law-abiding Canadians who own guns. We see this in Bill C-21, which was introduced three days before the Liberals introduced this deeply flawed piece of legislation, which imposes onerous new restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners and threatens law-abiding firearms owners with jail time if they fail to comply.

There we have it, in terms of the Liberal approach. If someone happens to be a law-abiding firearms owner, the Liberals are coming after them and threatening them with jail, but if they happen to be a serious criminal who commits serious offences with guns, the Liberals are here to help them stay out of jail. Talk about a mismatched set of priorities on the part of the government. Talk about putting ideology ahead of common sense and public safety.

This legislation would not just eliminate mandatory jail times for serious firearms offences. This bill would also remove mandatory jail times for serious drug related offences, as my colleague, the member for Fundy Royal, pointed out. These include drug trafficking, exporting and importing drugs, and possession for the purpose of trafficking. I could go on.

That is very inconsistent with the false advertising of the government, which says this bill is about helping people struggling with addictions. In fact, what this bill is really about is helping those who prey on some of the most vulnerable Canadians, including Canadians who are struggling with addictions. It is simply a further example of the dishonest approach the government has taken with respect to selling this deeply flawed and ideological piece of legislation.

The difference in the approach of the previous Conservative government, compared with the approach of the current government to Canada's criminal justice system and holding dangerous criminals accountable, could not be more stark. The previous Conservative government worked tirelessly to strengthen Canada's criminal justice system by holding dangerous criminals accountable under the law.

Among the measures taken by the previous Conservative government was ending house arrest for some very serious offences. Bill C-22 would eviscerate the measures that were introduced by the previous Conservative government by allowing persons convicted of some very serious offences to serve their time in their homes, perhaps next to you, Madam Speaker, instead of behind bars where they belong.

Offences that could be served in the community if this legislation is passed include manslaughter, prison breach, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, kidnapping a minor, motor vehicle theft, theft over $5,000 and arson for a fraudulent purpose. That is just scratching the surface.

Bill C-22 would put the rights of criminals ahead of victims, public safety and safe streets and communities. It is why we, on this side of the House, will vigorously oppose this legislation every step of the way.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I remind the House that I have taken all decisions based on the health and safety of my employees, following regulations and meeting the needs of my constituents, as well as Canadians across the country in my portfolio.

I will provide an overview of the Bill C-22. The bill would repeal MMPs for all drug offences, which were enacted by the previous Conservative government in 2012. It would also repeal MMPs for certain offences involving the use or possession of firearms and a tobacco-related offence. We know that MMPs do not deter these crimes or keep people and communities safe. In eliminating these MMPs, Bill C-22 would restore judicial discretion, reduce the time and money spent on needless litigation, and address systemic barriers to equality.

We have always held that serious criminals should be treated seriously. As such MMPs will remain for the most serious offences including murder, child sexual offences and firearm offences linked to organized crime.

These changes go hand in hand with the proposed measures in Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with regard to firearms, to increase maximum penalties for certain firearms offences related to gun smuggling and trafficking.

This would allow judges to issue stricter sentences for the most serious gun crimes, including gang-related violence, while enabling a broader range of options for lower-risk and first-time offenders, including alternatives that could help prevent them from becoming hardened criminals behind bars. This is critical to helping keep our communities safe.

With Bill C-22 serious crimes would be sentenced seriously and proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender.

The second area of proposed reforms I would like to discuss focuses on realigning the conditional sentence regime with the purpose for which these sentences were originally intended, namely, to address the overreliance on incarceration for less serious non-violent crimes. A CSO is a sentence of incarceration of less than two years that may be served in the community under strict conditions. It is only available if a judge is satisfied that doing so would pose no risks to public safety.

Bill C-22 would repeal a number of restrictions brought in by the former Conservative government on the availability of CSOs. The additional restrictions have limited judges from imposing CSOs in appropriate cases. The current restrictions have resulted in more people being sent to jail and more charter challenges and have contributed to the over-incarceration of indigenous persons, in particular.

In July 2020, in the case of the Queen v. Sharma, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the provisions in the Criminal Code limiting the availability of CSOs for offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life, or 10 years if drugs were involved. The court noted that these limits on the availability of CSOs undermined the remedial purpose of the Gladue principle in the Criminal Code by limiting a judge's ability to impose fit sentences to take into account the circumstances of indigenous offenders, including the well-documented impacts of colonialism and residential schools.

Bill C-22 seeks to reform the CSO regime in a way that would allow courts to order sentences other than incarceration in appropriate cases that focus on restorative justice principles. We have heard a strong and positive response from the legal community to these proposed changes. These changes would have real, measurable results. Again, CSOs would only be available for those facing sentences of less than two years and where the judge is satisfied that there is no risk to public safety. They would not be available for more serious offences, including murder or attempted murder, torture, advocating genocide, and criminal organization and terrorism offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more.

I would now like to turn my attention to describing the third set of important legislative reforms proposed by Bill C-22, which support our commitment to public health-centred approaches to drugs and substance use.

Bill C-22 aligns with amendments proposed by Private Member's Bill C-236, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in terms of evidence-based diversion measures, with certain technical amendments. I would like to thank the member for Beaches—East York for his private member's bill and his leadership in this area. We agree that these changes to treat addiction as a health issue would improve the state of the criminal justice system in Canada, particularly as we examine better approaches to dealing with the opioid crisis, and believe that changes like these may very well help save lives.

Substance use is first and foremost a health issue. Bill C-22 would enact an evidence-based diversion framework in the CDSA with a set of guiding principles informed by Canada's drugs and substances strategy, as well as principles adopted by the United Nations and the World Health Organization. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, on February 19, released a statement in support of C-22's treatment of drug possession offences. It is clear that we must move toward more effective ways to address public safety concerns relating to substance use.

These reforms are also inspired by the successful approach used in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They would require peace officers and Crown attorneys to consider alternatives to charging and prosecuting. That includes diverting individuals to a public health agency before proceeding with a charge or before proceeding with a charge once laid. It is worth noting that prosecutors and law enforcement work together in determining which charges to lay in a specific situation and, as such, extending this requirement to both would help ensure that appropriate discretion is exercised.

The reforms proposed would encourage the diversion of simple drug possession cases away from the criminal justice system and focus on the needs of the individual.

Another important benefit of these reforms is that individuals would not have the stigma and the legal costs associated with being charged with a criminal offence. Moreover, these reforms are consistent with the director of public prosecutions' August 2020 guideline that requires prosecutors to pursue diversion for simple drug possession cases.

These proposed amendments will support my 2021 supplementary mandate letter commitment to divert first-time, non-violent individuals charged with simple drug possession at an early stage.

These proposed legislative reforms will generate several long-term benefits to the criminal justice system, including overall cost reductions, and will lead to more effective responses leading to less recidivism. I am confident that Bill C-22 strikes the right balance. Indeed, it has been applauded as much-needed legislation. It responds to long-standing calls for reforms by the Quebec Bar and the Canadian Bar Association.

Our changes reflect several calls to action made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, calls for justice by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and recent calls by the Parliamentary Black Caucus.

Moving forward, we will do more. We have committed to support the application of Gladue principles and Gladue report-writing in the criminal justice system. We have also committed to supporting community justice centre pilot projects across Canada, which will provide more culturally appropriate services to address root causes of crime. Finally, we have noted our support for the implementation of the impact of race and culture assessments, which will better inform sentencing decisions, as they will be based on an understanding of the systemic inequalities faced by racialized groups such as Black Canadians.

In advancing these reforms, I am conscious that some stakeholders and parliamentarians may believe that Bill C-22 does not go far enough or, for others, it goes too far.

Bill C-22 is an important step that advances evidence-based reforms, which will alleviate some of the negative trends plaguing our criminal justice system. It will ensure that sentencing judges are better able to consider the entire context, circumstances, and seriousness of an offence when they impose a sentence.

The time has come to break with the past, the so-called tough-on-crime policies of the previous government, whose only benefit has been to make politicians look tough. We can do a better job and we will.

Public Safety

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal firearms bill, Bill C-21, will ban outright all airsoft guns, most BB guns and some paintball models in Canada, which are toys. This is not just a plan to destroy a pastime enjoyed by over 64,000 players in Canada; the Liberal law risks an entire industry worth $100 million to the Canadian economy, and $10 million of that is in Quebec alone.

Half the businesses in Canada tailored to these harmless hobbies expect to close for good. That includes businesses in Lakeland, such as Xcalibre Paintball in Boyle, Alberta. Many business owners say Bill C-21 is the bitter end of airsoft and paintball in Canada, and that includes most BB guns, which most of us probably remember target shooting pop cans with as kids.

Because of the Liberals, 1,500 Canadians will likely lose their jobs, and for what? The Liberal plan is to take legal firearms off the ranges and ban toys, while leaving illegal guns in the hands of gangs and criminals and reducing penalties for serious and violent crimes. It just makes no sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, Liberals claim to care about public safety, but they do not. With the PM gunning for an election, he is desperate to cover up his many failures on COVID and everything else, so he returns to the old Liberal playbook and flips to the page on targeting law-abiding firearms owners. Voila: Bill C-21 was born.

Canadians are not fools, though, and Liberal hypocrisy shone through when they introduced only a few days later Bill C-22, which lessens penalties for the real criminals who commit crimes with the real problem: illegal guns. Liberals are playing politics, and Canadians are paying the price. With last year's OIC and Bill C-21 and Bill C-22, Liberals have shown that they do not actually care about public safety, nor are they willing to get tough on crime.

Canadians deserve better, and Conservatives are ready to respect responsible firearms owners' rights and deal with the real problem: smuggled guns and gangs.

Criminal Code

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have and will always support common-sense firearms regulations that keep Canadians and communities safe and respect their rights.

In Bill C-21, there are some things that the Conservatives have been calling for and can support. However, many things completely target the wrong people and the wrong groups, if the aim really is to improve and protect public safety. Also, crucial areas of concern are not addressed in the bill at all.

The Conservatives have always urged the Liberals to focus on and to target Canada's legislation and enforcement resources toward the primary source of most gun crime in Canada: illegally smuggled firearms in the hands of gangs and criminals. That is why we support certain measures, like increasing the penalty for gun smuggling, something the Conservatives have advocated for years; authorizing disclosure to Canadian law enforcement agencies when there are reasonable grounds to suspect a firearms licence is used for straw purchasing; improving the ability of the CBSA to manage inadmissibility to Canada when foreign nationals commit offences upon entry into Canada, including firearms-related offences; and transferring the responsibility for transborder criminality from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

The Conservatives are committed to actually strengthening and securing public safety through real action to tackle gun crime head-on. The Conservatives have always said that we would increase funding and coordination for border security to clamp down on illegal firearms smuggling, restore mandatory minimum sentences to keep violent gang members off the street and focus on gangs and criminals instead of making life more difficult for law-abiding firearms owners and retailers by ending automatic bail, revoking parole for gang members and new and tougher sentences for ordering or involvement in violent gang crime.

The Liberals do the opposite. They are big on rhetoric but short on real action. In fact, the day after the Liberals announced Bill C-21, they announced Bill C-22, which, incredibly, would eliminate mandatory minimums for unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of a weapon obtained by crime, weapons trafficking, reckless discharge of a firearm, discharge of a firearm with intent to wound or endanger a person and robbery with a firearm; so reductions for all of those sentences. Bill C-22 would reduce sentences for a number of other horrible offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, abduction of people under 14, motor vehicle theft and arson.

The Conservatives focus on outcomes and whether laws will achieve objectives. What Bill C-21 proves is that the Liberals, as always, are more concerned with appearances. They play fast and loose with the facts, make up words to scare and ignore the actual problem. With Bill C-21, they would effectively trade on Canadians' fear and safety for short-term political gain. The reality is that taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens does nothing to stop dangerous criminals and gangs who obtain their guns illegally and already do not follow laws, do not get licences and do not care about firearms classifications. This just continues the Liberal government's ongoing preoccupation with taking firearms off of regulated ranges, while leaving illegal guns on the streets in the hands of those gangs and criminals who will never comply.

In June 2019, the former Toronto police chief was asked about banning handguns in Canada. He said:

I believe that would be potentially a very expensive proposition but just as importantly, it would not in my opinion be perhaps the most effective measure in restricting the access that criminals would have to such weapons, because we’d still have a problem with them being smuggled across the border.

Of course, the former Toronto police chief to whom I am referring is the current Minister of Public Safety.

Bill C-21 would create conditions on federal firearms licences to restrict handgun storage or transport within municipalities that have passed such bylaws. Again, the bylaws would be conditions on licences. Therefore, this proposed measure literally, specifically and only targets lawful Canadians who already have the paperwork and comply with the rules. This section would lead to yet another layer of confusing, overlapping regulations and a patchwork of rules for already law-abiding Canadians within and between communities, while violations could result in two years' imprisonment or permanent licence revocations and would do nothing to crack down on illegal gun smuggling and trading and gang crimes with guns.

Many law enforcement officials have already said that this measure would not be effective, including the current RCMP commissioner, the former OPP commissioner, the police chief of Vancouver, the former president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, representatives of the Winnipeg and Halifax police services and police chiefs of Regina and Saskatoon. Provinces are already speaking out against Bill C-21: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, whose premier said, “It's just not going to work.”

In 2019, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police did not support calls for a ban on handguns and the former president, Vancouver police chief, Adam Palmer said:

In every single case there are already offences for that. They’re already breaking the law and the criminal law in Canada addresses all of those circumstances...The firearms laws in Canada are actually very good right now. They’re very strict.

Former OPP commissioner Chris Lewis says:

This municipal handgun ban is ridiculous...It would only impact legal owners. The gangbangers are already possessing/carrying them in defiance of the Criminal Code and don’t fear police whose hands are tied and weak judicial systems.

Toronto Police Services president Mike McCormack says:

There's no way in my world or any world I know that this would have an impact on somebody who's going to go out and buy an illegal gun and use it to kill another person or shoot another person...

This is a classic Liberal smokescreen. There is absolutely no impact on the illicit use of illegal firearms in crime. Of course criminals and gangs do not carry licences or register their illegally obtained firearms and will not be deterred by municipal bylaws. They do not even care about the Criminal Code.

The fact that at least 80% of guns used in Canadian gun crimes are illegally smuggled in from the states shows that enabling towns and cities to demand handguns from licenced owners will have little to no impact on actual public safety.

In 2016, a father of four for two years, whose children were only six and five along with one-year-old twins, was enjoying a night out with friends in Toronto when he was shot and killed by a stray bullet. Now a mother of three, carrying the lifetime grief from the loss of her child, his mom, Evelyn Fox, advocates to support at-risk youth and prevent youth involvement in gang activity. She believes that banning handguns in Canada is “nonsense” because “street level wise, they'll get access to the handguns anyways.” She says, “I also would like to know how it is that penalizing law-abiding gun owners with a gun ban is going to deter gun violence on our streets when 80%, if not more, is coming across the border?” She is right.

In Toronto, despite the new Liberal order in council prohibition of thousands of firearms, there were 462 shootings in 2020, an increase over 2018 when there was no prohibition order. The year 2019 was a record year.

Since 2014, shootings in Toronto have increased 161%. Obviously residents and family are worried about this reality, causing sleepless nights, untold heartbreak, and anxiety about security and whether kids can grow up carefree in peaceful neighbourhoods. How galling that Bill C-21 would do nothing to make it more safe, while the Liberals claim otherwise.

In 2019, Toronto's police chief, Mark Saunders, reported that most guns used in crime were illegally smuggled in. He said, “When it comes to the handguns, I believe, 82 per cent...of the ‘crime guns’ in the city are coming from the United States.”

Peel Police Association President Adrian Woolley says, “There are a lot of guns out there and they are not legal ones from target shooters but illegal ones smuggled in from the United States.”

For the 2017-18 year, CBSA seized 751 illegal firearms at the U.S.-Canada border, 696 the next year and 753 for the year after that. The CBSA has already seized 166 firearms for the first quarter of this fiscal year. Canada's border agents should be commended for that good work and lawmakers should support their efforts to improve public safety by getting tougher on gun criminals and gun smugglers when they are caught. That is exactly what our Conservative colleague from Markham—Unionville tried to do when he proposed Bill C-238, which would have cracked down on gun smuggling, knowingly possessing illegally smuggled guns by increasing sentences and making it harder for gun runners to get out on bail. However, the Liberals and the NDP voted against that public safety legislation a week before the announcement of Bill C-21.

When asked why the government is not getting tougher on criminals, the Liberal default is to say that they implemented a prohibition on “military-style” assault rifles. First, the term “military-style” assault rifle is of course invented with no legal definition, but it does sound scary. The reality is that fully automatic rifles have been prohibited for use outside of the military since the 1970s. The Prime Minister said that he made a law so people could not purchase firearms without purchasing a licence, but that is false.

Along the spirit of making things up, just last Saturday the member for York South—Weston told a crowd of gun crime victims and families that his Liberal government's gun grab included “AR-135” submachine guns, except they absolutely do not even exist.

Unfortunately, it is easy to see why lawful, well-intentioned urban and rural firearms owners, collectors, hunters, sport shooters, enthusiasts and retailers, people who enjoy this Canadian heritage, are skeptical of the Liberals, to say nothing of the radical shift in Bill C-21. It would create a one-sided guilty-until-proven innocent-ask questions later regime, focused on Canadians who already did a filing and have the licences under Canada's stringent regulations and vigorous vetting processes for prohibition orders and warrantless search and seizures.

That is ripe for abuse and conflicts while bogging down already backlogged courts and law enforcement resources when right now there are multiple overlapping systems to ensure that law enforcement can respond to urgent situations involving threats to personal and public safety, as they must. The new approach actually may even take longer and could easily have unintended consequences and deliver the opposite outcomes. This pattern of saying one thing and doing another, of literally making things up, of not having the evidence to support the legislation to show it will achieve stated outcomes should make every Canadian question and challenge the Liberals to prove that their laws will actually make a difference for public safety and combat gun crimes, too.

That brings me to the framework for the voluntary confiscation program. A 2018 Public Safety Canada paper entitled “Reducing Violent Crime: A Dialogue on Handguns and Assault Weapons” explained why confiscating firearms from lawful licensed owners would be ineffective at reducing gun crime in Canada. The report states:

The vast majority of owners of handguns and of other firearms in Canada lawfully abide by requirements, and most gun crimes are not committed with legally-owned firearms....

In most cases, individuals own handguns either in the context of sport shooting activities or because those handguns form a part of a collection....

Any ban...would primarily affect legal firearms owners,...

The public safety minister recently said that the government does not know how many firearms will fall under the confiscation program, but claims it is in the range of 200,000 and says that at an average price of $1,300 per firearm, it will cost taxpayers in the range of $250 million to $260 million. Of course, experts say that the Liberals are way off and that this confiscation program could cost as much as $5 billion when all is said and done. The fact is that the Liberals do not have any structure in place because no private sector proponents have agreed to run the program after two public requests for bids. It really does say something when highly reputable major firms look at the government's purported analysis and cost assumptions and decide they will not touch it with a 10-foot pole.

The Liberals still have not been clear on how they will address retailers left holding the bag with inventory they cannot sell or return to manufacturers either. Phil Harnois, the owner of P&d Enterprises in Alberta, says that 40% of his annual sales were of firearms that are now banned and that thousands of dollars of inventory became worthless overnight. The president of the National Police Federation, Brian Sauvé, says that “the evidence is that illegal gun trafficking leads to criminals owning guns, which leads to crimes with firearms.... [W]e need to look at the source of the problem.” The vast majority of gun crime committed in Canada is by gangs and criminals using already illegal guns, most often illegally smuggled in. That needs to be reiterated because Bill C-21 clearly misses the mark.

Sylvia Jones, spokesperson for Ontario's solicitor general, agrees. She says that “As law enforcement experts routinely highlight, it has not been demonstrated that banning legal firearms and targeting law-abiding citizens would meaningfully address the problem of gun violence.” The Liberals have shown, of course, though, that they do not really believe that their list of banned firearms in the hands of licensed law-abiding firearms owners are a real threat either. Otherwise, why is there this confusing step of banning them, but allowing Canadians to keep them in their homes so long as the guns are registered with the government? It is very confounding.

However, what is clear is that Bill C-21 finds a way to create a boondoggle that will result in the creation of another long-gun registry because some of the now-prohibited firearms are long guns and it will cost taxpayers billions of dollars while delivering no concrete results to improve the public safety of Canadians suffering at the hands of gangs and criminals carrying out the vast majority of gun violence and crime in Canada.

Another measure that is glaring in its obvious irrelevance to improving public safety in Canada while also imposing major consequences on everyday people is the prohibition of the importation, exportation and sale of all non-regulated air guns that look like modern firearms. Here is the deal. The Liberals are actually imposing a ban on airsoft and a partial ban on paintball. Any rational, common sense person can see that toy guns are not responsible for the shootings are causing death in Canadian cities. Criminals and gangs with illegal guns are tragically ending the lives of Canadians. This provision in Bill C-21 would end hundreds of livelihoods, legacies and jobs and outlaw an entirely harmless hobby enjoyed by more than 60,000 Canadians.

Airsoft in Canada says the Canadian airsoft market is worth $100 million and over 260 businesses in Canada are linked to the paintball or airsoft community. The Quebec Airsoft Federation estimates that the industry brings in over $10 million per year in Quebec alone. Distributors and retailers are uncertain about what to do with the current stock and stock on order because all of it would be rendered worthless immediately, with no option to offset losses because the bill would prohibit sales. It will not only impact businesses that directly sell hobby and competition practice guns, but also the retailers of protective equipment and accessories, as well as the clubs and owners of sports facilities that have focused their businesses largely or solely around these activities.

This whole industry would be devastated. Matt Wasilewicz, who owns Canadian Airsoft Imports, says that the ban “confirms our worst fears.” Frank Chong, who owns Toronto Airsoft, Canada's largest airsoft retailer, says “It looks like it's doomsday for us at this point." Ziming Wan of BlackBlitz Airsoft in Waterloo says that “We're basically all going to have to shut down.... It's the death of the sport, as we know it”. Joe Kimpson of Flag Raiders in Kitchener says “You'll see the demise of airsoft in Canada.”

Seventy-four per cent of these businesses expect to lose over half their revenue because of Bill C-21 and 47% of them expect to be out of business for good. There are approximately 3,000 employees working in those affected businesses. It is unconscionable that half of them would lose their jobs and not a single life be saved for it.

It is hard to see how the Liberals are materially protecting the well-being and safety of Canadians by banning toy guns, shuttering more businesses and killing 1,500 jobs while Canada's unemployment rate is already the highest in the G7.

Mark from Motium Manufacturing in Lakeland says, “I was given no notice, no warning, no consultation. The hard work I've put in for over 8 years has been erased and my customers wrongfully criminalized. Why aren't criminals being as negatively impacted as my small business?”

A petition called “Stop Bill C-21” is circulating in the hobby community and 30,000 Canadians have already signed it. That is because Canadians know what experts have been saying all along, which is also what the Conservatives have been saying. What is missing from these Liberals is any meaningful emphasis or major legal framework targeting the main source of gun crime in Canada.

It is good to see some measures to help the CBSA and a small increase in penalties for gun smuggling, but those aspects of Bill C-21 appear more like a footnote in what seems to be a broader strategy primarily concerned with targeting already law-abiding members of Canadian society. One would read this bill and assume that the main goal is to be a nuisance to the legal firearms community. It is not at all obvious that the aim of Bill C-21 is to improve public safety.

The tragedy is that for all the big words and tough talk from the Liberals, it is the very real victims of growing gun violence and Canadian citizens and their families who are forced to bear the brunt of these failed Liberal policies and experiments. What is worse is that the evidence is available for all of us to see. Experts, law enforcement and policy-makers all agree that concrete strategies and legislation must be directed at criminals and gangs and supports for at-risk youth.

Conservatives will always support a common sense approach to firearms legislation with concrete outcomes that protect personal and public safety. Bill C-21 does not get to the bottom of addressing the major cause of gun crime in Canada and all MPs really owe it to the victims of violent crime in Canada, past and future, to get serious about gun smuggling, gangs and criminals.

As Evelyn Fox says, “I see the homicides happen and it’s almost like a retrigger for me to think that another mother has to go through this and another mother has to deal with the fact that they aren’t going to see their children again.” Because Bill C-21 will not actually make any difference to that, Conservatives will strongly oppose it, and if it passes, repeal Bill C-21.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have had discussions on this. I want to be really clear on a buyback of these weapons.

First, Canadians who bought these weapons did so legally. We have since prohibited them. Therefore, we are taking steps to remove those firearms, but it is not intended as a confiscation program. That would be a very challenging thing to do. We did look very carefully at buyback programs that had been initiated in Australia and the United Kingdom. They were a little more distant. One of the things we learned from all those circumstances was that governments had to do the important work of getting control of all these firearms first. Bill C-21 would do that. It would enable us to impose—

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question.

First of all, handguns represent a very significant danger. It is why we restrict them. Just to be very clear, in this legislation we are imposing very strict national restrictions on handguns: on their storage, sale and use. Those restrictions would apply in every place. We have also listened to municipalities where people have said that they would like to do more. We are prepared to work with communities that want to do more to keep their citizens safe. It is a responsibility we all have.

With respect to the airsoft rifles that the member references, there is no problem with those devices, except when they are designed to exactly replicate dangerous firearms so that they are indistinguishable from those firearms. We have listened to the law enforcement community, which has passed a number of resolutions. By the way, I consulted with the law enforcement community about why it wanted this done, and the representatives said that these devices have been used in crime.

In Winnipeg, for example, Chief Danny Smyth identified that 215 replica firearms were used to commit crimes in his city just last year. In his response to Bill C-21 he said, “We think you're on to something”.

I also spoke to the president of the CACP, who strongly supported it and expressed appreciation that the government finally listened to law enforcement to take effective action to remove devices that exactly replicate dangerous firearms. There really is no place for them in our society. They represent an unacceptable risk.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for the minister. It is the same question I have been asking the minister for almost a year now, here in the House and in written questions. It is about data and substantiation of how the prohibition of any of these firearms, or the measures taken through Bill C-21, would reduce gun violence in this country. It is a simple question about the data: Where is the evidence?

The minister mentioned he saw 22 tragic gun violence crimes in the Toronto area last year alone. I would like him to provide the statistics. Out of those 22 gun crimes, how many were done with legal firearms?

As well, I would like the minister to clarify and confirm that he just acknowledged he is bringing back a long-gun registry for those firearms that the Liberals have now prohibited. He mentioned the airsoft and replica firearms that he would now prohibit as well. Would he acknowledge that replica firearms have been prohibited in this country for a number of years now?

Finally, the minister again mentioned that the 1,500-plus firearms that were prohibited last year were designed by the military or for military use. I asked him last year to name just one of them that had been prohibited that had ever been, or is still, in use by the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

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

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured today to have the opportunity and privilege to take part in this debate and introduce to the House Bill C-21 at second reading. Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments, is a historic and important step forward for Canada in creating a safer country. This legislation proposes to introduce some of the strongest gun control measures in our country's history.

It represents the culmination of many years of work and strong advocacy from the victims of gun crimes in this country. We have listened to those victims. We have listened to police chiefs across the country, who have urged successive governments to bring in stronger measures, recognizing that gun control is a factor of community safety and a necessary legislative requirement for keeping our communities safe. As Dr. Najma Ahmed, co-chair of Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, has said about the bill, “This is a comprehensive bill that, if enacted, will save lives.”

Canada is generally a very safe country and Canadians take great pride in that, but they are legitimately concerned about the threats posed by firearm-related crime in their communities. It is therefore important to begin with the recognition and acknowledgement that gun ownership in Canada is not a right; it is a privilege. It is a privilege earned by gun owners who obey our laws and who purchase their guns legally, use them responsibly and store them securely. It is through the strict adherence to our laws, regulations and restrictions that Canadians earn the privilege of firearm ownership. I want to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of those firearm owners are, in fact, responsible and abide by our laws. However, we also know that far too often, firearms can fall into the wrong hands or be present in dangerous circumstances.

As a former police officer and police chief, I have far too many times been required to go to the scene of firearm tragedies where young people and innocent citizens have been gunned down in the streets, and where firearm violence impacts not only the victims, but their families and their communities. Last summer, I went to a community in Toronto that had already experienced 22 violent gun incidents just in the month of July. What that meant in the community is that every child knew someone who had been the victim of a gun crime. That generational trauma demands an appropriate response from all Canadians. I have also had the unfortunate duty to attend funerals for police officers and for citizens who had been killed with these guns. Those are the things that should deepen all of our resolve to take action.

We have listened to the strong advocacy of the victims from École Polytechnique, from Nova Scotia, at the mosque in Quebec and at tragedies throughout the country. We have also witnessed with horror the use of some of these weapons in mass shootings around the world, and we have taken action.

As members will recall, last May 1, our government, by order in council, prohibited over 1,500 weapons. With Bill C-21 introduced today, we are taking actions to complete that prohibition. We have, through the legislation, established the conditions necessary to secure and set controls for the newly prohibited firearms.

Under this legislation, all of those in possession of such newly prohibited firearms will be required to acquire a licence to possess the weapon. The firearm will have to be registered as a prohibited weapon. There will be no grandfathering, as previously done. Rather, we are imposing through this legislation strict prohibitions on the sale, transfer and transport of these weapons, and we are imposing complete prohibitions on their use. The use of these newly prohibited weapons will be a criminal offence. We are also imposing strict conditions on the storage of these weapons, rendering these newly prohibited firearms legally unusable as a firearm.

We have relied on the advice of law enforcement and our various officials across the country to determine the best way to safely manage these weapons, which are prevalent in our society. However, I want to be clear: There is nothing in this legislation that speaks of a buyback program. We believe that Canadians who legally purchased the guns we want to prohibit need to be treated fairly, and we are imposing appropriate and necessarily prohibitions on their sale and use, and restrictions on their storage. We also intend to offer the people who purchased these guns legally an opportunity to surrender them and be fairly compensated for them.

The bill does much more than just complete the prohibition. We have also looked very carefully in this legislation at all of the ways that criminals gain access to guns. We have seen a very concerning increase in gun violence in cities and communities right across this country. This manifests itself in different ways, but we know that in almost every circumstance criminals get their guns one of three ways: They are smuggled across our borders from the United States, stolen from lawful gun owners or retailers, or criminally diverted from those who purchase them legally and then sell them illegally.

In consultation with law enforcement, we have looked at all of the ways that criminals gain access to guns, and we have taken strong action in Bill C-21 to close off that supply. For example, with respect to concerns over guns coming in from across the border, we have heard many concerns from not only law enforcement but communities across the country about the proliferation of firearms, particularly handguns, that are smuggled in from the United States.

I recently had a conversation with my counterparts in the United States, and we are committed to establishing a bilateral task force on both sides of our countries for law enforcement to work collaboratively together to help prevent the importation of these firearms. In Bill C-21, we are also taking strong action to increase the penalty for gun smuggling and provide law enforcement and our border services officers with the resources and access to the data they need to be effective in identifying the source of these guns, for cutting off that supply and to deal more effectively to deter, detect and prosecute the individuals and organizations responsible for smuggling these guns into our country.

Let us also be clear that smuggling is not the only way. Quite often, we hear from gun retailers and the gun lobby in this country that we should only look at somebody else's guns, not theirs. Unfortunately, the reality is that in many parts of the country, crime guns are not just smuggled across the border.

I think it is important to listen to some of the police chiefs. For example, the chief in Saskatoon has recently said that crime guns in his community are not being smuggled across the border but are being stolen from legal gun owners. We also heard from the chief in Regina, who very clearly said that the guns in his community are not coming across the border but are legally owned, obtained through theft or straw purchase. The chief in Edmonton also opined that only 5% to 10% of the crime guns in his community, in the city of Edmonton, are actually smuggled across the border and the rest come from legal gun owners through theft and straw purchasing.

It is therefore important that in this legislation we address those sources of supply as well. That is why we are introducing in this legislation strict new restrictions on the storage of handguns in this country. They would require all handgun owners to store their weapons more securely, in a safe or vault that will be prescribed and described in the regulations of this legislation. They would also require gun retailers to store their weapons, when on display and in storage, more securely to prevent their theft.

I will highlight an example. A couple of years ago, two young girls and nine Torontonians were injured in a terrible and tragic gun incident. The firearm in that case was stolen some three months before from a gun shop in Saskatoon. Over three months, it made its way into Toronto and was used in a horrific crime. Therefore, keeping those guns out of our communities is an important element of Bill C-21.

Finally, we also deal with the source of supply through criminal diversion. We have seen a number of examples where individuals have purchased a large number of handguns and made an attempt to disguise their origin by filing off the serial numbers and then selling them for an enormous profit to the criminal market and to the gangs that commit violent acts in our communities. For those crimes to be detected and deterred, we need to ensure that law enforcement has access to the resources and data its members need to properly trace those weapons. That is why in this legislation we have provided law enforcement with that access.

We are also making significant investments. Yesterday, I advised the House that through our investments in British Columbia, for example, we just opened up a brand new forensic firearms laboratory. It will assist law enforcement in determining the origin of these weapons so we can hold individuals who purchase them legally and sell them illegally to account.

We also know that, in addition to guns that get into the hands of criminals, there are circumstances when the presence of a firearm that may have been legally obtained can lead to tragedy in certain potentially dangerous situations. We see it in incidents of domestic violence and intimate partner violence, when a legally acquired firearm may be in a home. When the circumstances in that home change so that it becomes a place of violence and threat and coercion, the presence of a firearm in those circumstances can lead to deadly consequences.

Although the police currently have some limited authority to remove firearms in those circumstances, in many cases of domestic and intimate partner violence the police are not aware of the presence of a firearm, even when the crime is reported to them.

Through this legislation, we are empowering others: empowering victims, those who support them, legal aid clinics and other people in our society to take effective action through what are called extreme risk laws to remove firearms from potentially dangerous situations. Similarly, in situations where an individual may become suicidal or is emotionally disturbed, the presence of a firearm could lead to a deadly outcome.

We are empowering doctors, family members, clergy and elders in communities to take effective action to remove firearms by using the provisions of this legislation to remove firearms from those potentially dangerous and deadly situations.

Finally, this legislation also applies to those who engage in acts of hatred and extremism online. We have seen, in a number of tragic incidents in this country, that individuals have given an indication of their deadly intent online. When that information is available, we are now empowering those who become aware of it to take action, to remove firearms from those deadly situations and help keep people safe.

I want to advise the House that in the United States, 19 states have implemented extreme risk laws, also referred to as red flag laws, in every jurisdiction. In those states, we have seen strong evidence that these measures save lives. That is our intent with this legislation.

This legislation is not intended, in any way, to infringe upon the legitimate use of firearms for hunting or sport shooting purposes. It is, first and foremost, a public safety bill. It aims to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would commit violent crimes with them, and to remove firearms from situations that could become dangerous and be made deadly by the presence of a firearm. That is the intent of this legislation.

We are taking some additional measures within this legislation. For example, we have listened to law enforcement, which for over 30 years has been urging the Government of Canada to take action to prohibit what are often referred to as replica firearms. These devices appear absolutely indistinguishable from dangerous firearms. The police have urged governments to take action because these devices are often used in crime. They have been used to hurt people. They present an overwhelming, impossible challenge for law enforcement officers when they are confronted by individuals using these devices. This has, in many circumstances, led to tragic consequences.

After listening to law enforcement, this legislation includes prohibiting those devices. If I may be clear, these are not BB guns, paint guns or pellet guns that people use recreationally. These are devices designed as exact replicas of dangerous firearms. That exact appearance really creates the danger around these devices, so we are taking action.

We are also taking action to strengthen our provisions with respect to large-capacity magazines. I have been to far too many shootings in my city of Toronto. Years ago, when someone discharged a revolver, there would be two or three shots fired. Now, dangerous semi-automatic handguns and large-capacity magazines can lead to literally dozens and dozens of rounds being discharged, putting far more innocent people at risk.

We have seen that those devices are often modified to allow for the higher capacity, and we are taking action to prevent that. We are closing a loophole with respect to the importation of information, and we are making other consequential amendments to this legislation, all intended to keep communities safe.

As a companion to this important legislation, we have also made significant investments, first of all, in law enforcement. Several years ago a previous government cut enormous amounts of funding from the police, eliminating RCMP officers and border services officers, weakening our controls at the border and compromising our ability to deal effectively with organized crime. We have been reinvesting in policing and border services to restore Canada's capacity to secure our borders and keep our communities safe.

For example, we have made over $214 million available to municipal and indigenous police services because we know that they do important work in dealing with guns and gangs in their communities and reducing gun violence. Those investments in policing are important; however, they are not the only investments necessary to keep our communities safe. That is why we are also investing in communities. Through our fall economic statement, over the next five years we are making $250 million available to community organizations that do extraordinary work with young people and help to change the social conditions that give rise to crime and violence.

This is a comprehensive approach to gun safety in this country. It is always extraordinary to me that some people are afraid to talk about guns when we are talking about gun violence, but in my experience, countries with strong and appropriate gun control are safer countries. We have also seen that those countries with weak gun laws, as have been opposed by some in the House, experience the tragedy of gun violence far too often.

If I may repeat, in this country firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right. That makes us fundamentally different from countries like the United States, where the right to bear arms is protected constitutionally. It is not in Canada. Canada, like many other very sensible countries, has taken the appropriate step of banning firearms that have no place in our society. They are not designed for hunting and they are not designed for sport: they are designed for soldiers to hunt other soldiers and kill people, and tragically that is what they have been used for. That is why we have prohibited them and through the actions of this bill, we are taking strong measures to ensure that these firearms cannot ever be legally used in this country.

We believe that these provisions are appropriate, they are necessary, they are effective and they are fair, because we acknowledge as well that those who purchased the now-prohibited firearms did so legally. Now that we have prohibited them, we want to ensure that they can never be used to commit a violent crime at any time in this country.

We have drawn a bright line in this legislation. We are not a country where people arm themselves to defend themselves against each other. We do not carry guns in this country for self-protection. We rely on the rule of law. Peace, order and good government are strongly held Canadian values, and we do not arm our citizens as they do in some other countries for self-defence.

Firearms in this country are only appropriate for hunting and sport shooting purposes, and there is nothing in this legislation that in any way infringes upon those activities. Some will try to make the case notwithstanding, but frankly it is a false case based on the false assumption that all firearms in this country represent a danger. They are offensive weapons by their very definition; therefore, we regulate them very strictly in Canada. Some of those firearms, such as handguns, are very dangerous, so we have appropriately added restrictions on them.

Finally, some weapons frankly have no place in a society for which firearms can only be used for hunting and sport purposes, These are firearms that were designed for combat: tactical weapons, which used to be marketed as assault weapons before those weapons began to be prohibited by countries like New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. These weapons were even prohibited in the United States for a decade.

We are doing the right thing and taking the appropriate action to keep Canadians safe. This bill builds upon the effective measures that we brought forward in Bill C-71, which we are in the process of fully implementing over the next few months. We believe that, coupled with our investments, both pieces of legislation will help fulfill our promise to Canadians to do everything necessary to strengthen gun control in this country and keep Canadians safe.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for sharing this excellent news. I believe hon. members were unanimous on this.

That being said, I thank my colleague for his Thursday question.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the Bloc Québécois opposition day. Tomorrow morning, Friday, we will begin second reading stage of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments in relation to firearms. Tomorrow afternoon, we will resume debate on Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020 and other measures.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, March 9, the week we return, will be an allotted day.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish my colleagues an excellent week in their respective ridings and excellent work with their community.

Firearms

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a government's number one priority should always be to keep its citizens safe. This is why it is so confusing that the Liberals are attempting to demonize the law-abiding firearm owners in Bill C-21, while simultaneously introducing new measures that reduce sentences for criminals charged with illegal gun offences.

If the Liberals were focused on protecting Canadians, they would not have voted against Bill C-238, which would have imposed tougher sentences for criminals found to have smuggled firearms or to be in possession of illegal firearms.

It is abundantly clear to my colleagues and many of my constituents that the Liberals are more focused on furthering their own ideological agenda rather than protecting all Canadians.

Public Safety

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Fundy Royal boasts great organizations like the Petitcodiac Sportsman's Club, the Shepody Fish and Game Association, the Hampton Rifle and Pistol Club and the Sussex Fish and Game Association. These are community hubs with engaged memberships of law-abiding New Brunswickers.

Unfortunately, it is Canadians like these that Bill C-21 will target, while violent gun crime remains largely ignored by the Liberal government. Conservatives want to target criminals, while the government would rather create them. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy legal firearms from licenced owners will not make our community safer. The Liberal government wants Canadians to think it is concerned about safety, but it has just defeated a Conservative bill that would have cracked down on smuggling and possessing illegal firearms.

I will continue to speak up for the law-abiding firearms owners of Fundy Royal, and I firmly believe that Canadians deserve to have evidence-based legislation that will actually make our communities safer.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, our government promised Canadians that we would strengthen gun control, and of course, the Conservatives have promised the gun lobby that they will weaken it.

There are three ways in which criminals get their hands on guns: They are smuggled, stolen or diverted. Through the important and necessary measures of Bill C-21, we are taking strong action to strengthen gun control and cut off the supply of guns to criminals. We are also introducing measures to remove guns from dangerous situations that could be made deadly by the presence of a firearm.

Through investments in law enforcement and in our communities, along with strong, new gun regulations and legislation, we are keeping our promise to Canadians to help keep them safe.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, instead of focusing on the pandemic and getting Canadians vaccinated, the Liberals decided to introduce Bill C-21 last week, once again hurting law-abiding gun owners.

Worse still, in the same week they introduced a bill to reduce prison sentences for criminals who had illegal firearms in their possession. It is always the same with these Liberals: Honest citizens are penalized, while rule breakers call the shots.

The government should be investing in gang units to give police the resources they need to put a stop to smuggling and get dangerous criminals off our streets. Instead, our hunters and sport shooters, like the members of the Club de tir le Faucon de Jonquière and the airsoft and paintball community are being treated like criminals.

The Conservatives will always support reasonable, common sense firearms policies to protect our families and keep guns away from dangerous criminals.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was a bill that would have tackled gun violence in the GTA. It was my bill, Bill C-238, which the Liberals shamefully voted against. After five years of sitting on their hands, the Liberals have introduced a gun bill that will not make the GTA any safer.

How is the minister not ashamed of Bill C-21?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I want to reassure all hunters, farmers and sport shooters they are not being targeted in any way and that we have the greatest respect for them.

Our bill actually targets criminals who are smuggling and trafficking firearms. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says it wholeheartedly endorses all efforts to strengthen border controls and impose stronger penalties to combat firearms smuggling and trafficking. That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-21 and several other measures that will make Canadians safer.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for her question.

I know that this issue is especially important to her. I think it is safe to say that no other government has done as much to improve gun control in Canada. For example, our Bill C-71 enabled background checks. On May 1 of last year, our government banned 1,500 military-style assault weapons. This week, we are reinforcing that ban with Bill C-21, which also introduces “red flag” and “yellow flag” laws that make it possible to remove firearms and limit individuals' access to firearms if they pose a threat to themselves or to their family and friends. The goal is to fight violence against women and intimate partner violence. This measure was welcomed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, by the coalition of doctors for—

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, my colleague wants to know what the legislative agenda will be for the next few days.

Tomorrow morning, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-14, which would implement certain provisions of the economic statement. In the afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Then, Monday and Wednesday of next week, we will continue the debate on Bill C-19. On Tuesday, we will consider Senate amendments to Bill C-7, the medical assistance in dying law. I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, February 25, will be an allotted day. On Friday that same week, we will begin second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms act.

I thank my colleague for his question.

Public Safety

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question makes me wonder if she has even read the bill.

The legislation we brought forward will provide Canadians with the strongest regulatory framework for the restriction of handguns in all parts of the country. When coupled with the legislation we passed with Bill C-71 and the new measures of Bill C-21, we will have the strongest restrictions in every place in every part of the country.

There is nothing in this legislation that compels any municipality or Quebec to do more, but we are quite willing to work with those who want to do more in their communities. We have heard from many municipalities and provinces that are prepared to do more. Every order of government has a responsibility to the safety of its citizens.

Criminal Code

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)