Bill C-21

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

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

Criminal Code

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to commence debate on Bill C-21, which is a bill that represents a culmination of the advocacy, effort and leadership of so many people, most especially the Canadians who have been profoundly impacted by gun violence.

I cannot bring enough humility to this chamber and to this speech to convey my gratitude to them and indeed to everyone who has contributed to a law that we believe, on the government side, represents a significant stride and an important step. It is probably the most important step we have taken with regard to gun law policy reform in a generation.

I want to bring the chamber's attention to a number of individuals whom I had the privilege of getting to know in the journey leading to this debate.

These are good people like Ken Price and Claire Smith, whose daughter Samantha was injured in the Danforth shooting tragedy in my hometown, and people like Nick Beaton, who lost his pregnant wife in the Portapique and Truro shooting in Nova Scotia.

I met people from Quebec, such as Imam Boufeldja Benabdallah of the Quebec mosque and Nathalie Provost, an incredibly inspiring survivor of the Polytechnique shooting in Montreal.

Most recently, I met Eileen Mohan, who lost her son about 15 years ago. He was only a young boy. It is an innocent life gone, snuffed out in the crossfire in British Columbia. He is one of the Surrey Six.

When I met Eileen about a week ago, she said to me, and I will never forget the look in her eye, that she was proud. She had waited 15 years for the government to put forward legislation that would do the things we are proposing to do so that no other mom, no other parent and no other person would have to lose a loved one like she did.

There is really no way to articulate that sense of loss, that anguish, in the conversations I have. It is indescribable, and perhaps the single most important motivation for me, and I genuinely hope for all members in the chamber, is ensuring that we do better by them by passing this law.

This has been exceedingly difficult, I have to say. I see the patience that these survivors have exhibited. It is as though, since the moment they lost the person who mattered to them or the moment they were directly impacted by gun violence, they have been climbing a mountain that is as high as one can imagine, and the elements are throwing everything at them: snow, rain, wind, boulders and avalanches. These are obstacles, and despite all of it, they have persevered and fought hard.

I just want to impress upon everyone here and all Canadians that this is why we are here. We are here for them. We can never forget that.

The imperative has only increased over the past number of years for us to take additional steps to revisit not only our gun laws, but also our entire strategy when it comes to fighting gun violence. A Statistics Canada report issued a little less than two weeks ago really shone a light on the extent of the problem. Gun violence is up 81% since 2009. Gun homicides are up. Handgun violence, specifically, is up, and this is the number one type of gun used in homicides. Alarmingly, domestic violence, intimate-partner violence and gender-based violence are all up in connection with the presence of guns and gun violence. This just goes to show that wherever one comes from in this debate, no matter what one's perspective is, there must be one thing that unites all of us, and that is the need to do more.

Bill C-21 represents the culmination of the advice we have received from so many constituencies, including from survivors and many others, which I will come to momentarily, to take that additional step to do better. We have had the occasion to start to explain the provisions in Bill C-21, and I will take the next few moments to give additional details on how those provisions would attack, very specifically, the issues that are so pernicious and so prevalent across communities in our country.

First and foremost, Bill C-21 would introduce a national freeze on handguns for the first time. In very clear language, this means that on a go-forward basis no one would be able to buy, sell, transfer or import a handgun. There would be limited exceptions for law enforcement and for those who work within the security industry, and there would be limited exceptions for those who compete in international competitions on behalf of Canada and the like. Beyond that, we would cap the market and stop the trend of a universe of classification of guns and handguns that has grown, on average, by about 45,000 to 55,000 new registrations every year. Members can imagine how quickly and how significantly the domain of handguns is growing within Canada.

It is no coincidence, in my opinion, that as the universe of those handguns has grown, so has the prevalence of handguns in the commission of serious violent offences, leading all the way to murder: to homicide. As a result of that, we are stopping that trend. That is one of the main centrepieces of the bill.

The last thing I will say about the priority and urgency that underlines this particular moment in time is that, since the government has stated its intention to pass Bill C-21 into law, we have seen a spike in the number of handgun sales across the country. This is something that the government was prepared for and was alive to, which is why, in addition to tabling Bill C-21, we also simultaneously put on the floor of the House of Commons regulations that would be modified under the Firearms Act so that we could more quickly bring in the effect of the national handgun freeze to stop the growth of that particular universe of guns. Again, these are increasingly being used in the commission of criminal offences leading up to homicide.

Earlier today, a number of MPs who caucus with the government at the Standing Committee on Public Security and National Security brought a motion with the hopes of achieving unanimity that we could more quickly bring in changes to the regulations under the Firearms Act, so that we could more quickly bring in the national handgun freeze and the effect of it. We did not get consensus at committee, unfortunately, and this is part of a sustained pattern that we have seen from the Conservative Party of Canada of an effort to obstruct debate.

In fact, this debate was supposed to start last Friday. I was right here in my chair after question period hoping to kick-start second reading, but instead we saw a flood of concurrence motions in a very deliberate effort to postpone the debate of Bill C-21. I am grateful that we are now finally commencing this debate, but let there be no more of it. Let us get on with it. We need to read and debate the bill.

The introduction of a national handgun freeze is the first thing. The second thing is that Bill C-21 will take on, in a very intentional and direct way, organized crime. It does this by first and foremost raising maximum sentences for illegal gun smugglers and traffickers at the border, from 10 years to 15 years. What is the effect of that statement of intent? It is to send a very powerful and clear message to anyone who is in the business of illegal gun smuggling that they are at greater risk of facing stiffer sentences. It is entirely appropriate, given the alarming trends that I have already alluded to and given the concerning report of Statistics Canada that shows that gun violence in various categories is on the rise and has been on the rise for some time.

In addition to that, and in consultation with law enforcement and provincial and territorial partners, we are also granting new investigatory powers to police by adding to the eligible offences under the Criminal Code under the specific category of firearms offences—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

I hope the hon. member will let the minister finish his speech without interrupting.

The hon. minister.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, Bill C-21 would also grant new investigatory powers by expanding the list of eligible firearms offences so that police can obtain wiretaps. Having worked in the criminal justice system and having worked as a federal prosecutor, I can attest to the fact that wiretap surveillance does allow law enforcement to interdict and to prevent crime before it occurs. By adding these powers, we are sending not only a clear message that if people are going to traffic guns illegally, they are going to face stiffer sentences and we are going to equip police with additional powers to stop them.

That is the second thing I wanted to highlight. The third thing I want to highlight is that we need to stop, once and for all, a simultaneous trend. We are seeing gender-based violence in our workplaces, communities, homes or wherever online. There is a trend between gender-based violence and guns. Between 2013 and 2019, the incidents involving gender-based violence and guns went up more than 30%, and that trend has continued.

What Bill C-21 would do, among other things, is introduce red flag laws. Red flag laws allow anybody to go to court to ask a judge to seize the gun or suspend the licence of a person who owns a gun if they pose a threat to anyone else or themselves.

This is a practical and effective tool that can reverse a negative trend by providing another protective mechanism. On the advice of organizations representing women and survivors, we added an amendment to the red flag laws to protect the identity of the person asking the court to apply this mechanism. This is one example of the work we are doing with communities affected by gun violence.

In Bill C-21, we also introduce yellow flag laws that would limit the discretion of authorities by requiring the automatic revocation of the gun licence of anybody who was subject to a restraining order or would be subject to a restraining order in the future. There, too, we listened very carefully to the groups that we engaged with in the formulation of Bill C-21.

There are a lot of other things that this bill does. There are some very specific provisions that would deal with the use of replica guns. These pose a significant threat, particularly for law enforcement who, when they are responding to gun calls, find it exceedingly difficult to distinguish between a real gun and a replica gun.

There are provisions that deal with the glorification of gun violence. I am sure that all members are concerned about the very targeted and concerted effort to make guns seem unserious, and to make guns seem like they could be abused recklessly by children and young people. No one should glorify violence. There are provisions within Bill C-21 that deal with that, as well.

As we looked at the various provisions we could introduce into Bill C-21, we consulted extensively. As I have said, we spoke with survivors' groups, women's groups and advocates: those who stand up for the rights of victims. We took their advice into very careful consideration. It is my sincere belief that as a result of those conversations, they would now see that advice reflected in the text of this bill.

We listened very carefully to law enforcement, particularly on the provisions that relate to illegal gun smuggling and deterring gun crime, and to providing additional authorities to them so that they could do their jobs by providing them with the tools they need. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has indicated that Bill C-21 would be a step in the right direction towards protecting our communities.

It is for that reason that I believe Bill C-21 enjoys the broad support of so many Canadians. It is not only those constituencies, but also big city mayors and rural mayors, with whom I met last week in Saskatchewan, who have come out in favour and said they supported Bill C-21.

It is my hope that we will study this bill with the urgency and the seriousness that it requires. It also has to be said that Bill C-21 has to be seen in the broader context of everything else that the government is doing, including introducing a national ban on AR-15s, which are assault-style rifles that have no place in our communities; taking the next steps that are necessary to introduce a mandatory buyback program, to get those guns out of our communities for good; following through with Bill C-71 to ensure that there are appropriate background checks, so that guns do not fall into the hands of the wrong people; and rolling out more quickly the $250-million building safer communities fund, so that we can address the root causes and social determinants of gun crime.

We need to do this as quickly as possible because of those survivors I referred to at the beginning of my remarks tonight. They are still climbing that mountain. They are still fighting their way to the top. It is a long journey, but the government is going to be there with them every step of the way. Bill C-21 is a very significant step in that direction. I hope that all members, after careful consideration, will support this bill. It is the right thing to do. It is how we will eradicate gun violence and protect all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his thoughtful remarks.

He mentioned, on a number of occasions in his speech, that the government is increasing maximum penalties to send a message to criminals who commit firearms offences. Again, there is this idea “to send a message, we are increasing the penalties”.

At the same time, the minister's government is also sending the message that it is eliminating mandatory prison time for serious firearms offences, such as firing a firearm with the intent to injure: That is shooting a gun at someone with the intent to shoot them with a bullet, robbing someone at gunpoint, extortion with a firearm, and using a firearm in the commission of a crime. These are all very serious, deadly gun crimes. The government is sending the message that criminals may not go to prison if they do that. They could actually serve house arrest in the community they terrorized.

I am not quite sure, but I feel there are a lot of mixed signals that he is trying to send to criminals here. Could he perhaps clarify?

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

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague will know I carry no truck for criminals and I carry no truck for individuals who would use guns to do harm to the community or to individuals whatsoever. However, the fact of the matter is that, before she became a member of Parliament, the last time the Conservative Party had the reins of government, there was a failed and prosecuted agenda around sentence reforms that simply did not work. The Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly struck down those failed policies that were introduced under the Conservative government, which is why my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, has put forward Bill C-5.

Members can reconcile that with what we are doing in Bill C-21, which will ensure that the judiciary, in whom we have respect, trust and confidence, can dispense justice. By raising maximum sentences from 10 to 14 years, we would be sending the very clear and unambiguous signal that if someone is going to illegally traffic across a border or in our communities illegal firearms, they will face stiffer sentences.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. I am very pleased that we are finally starting this debate on Bill C‑21. I have a question about how to proceed and I would like to hear the minister's answer.

At the press conference announcing Bill C‑21, it seemed pretty clear that a freeze on handguns was part of it. We later realized that this could be done by regulation.

It seems to me that the government did not anticipate the fact that these regulations, which would not come into force immediately, would lead to a spike or an explosion in handgun sales in the country. Now that the government has realized this, it is trying to put out the fire and get the regulations through more quickly, for example by moving a motion in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security today and perhaps adopting a motion in the House later to speed up the process, which I think is good. The intent of the bill was to reduce the number of firearms in circulation, but now that number is increasing because people are allowed to go out and buy more.

I am wondering what other ways could have been used. I also wonder why the Liberals decided to proceed with a freeze and regulation instead of a ban, as they did with the May 1, 2020, regulations on assault-style firearms.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I am very impatient. I am anxious to not only introduce this national freeze on handguns, but also to implement it. That is precisely why we support the Bloc's efforts. If the Bloc members want to move a motion to pass the regulatory changes that can implement the effects of the freeze, the government will be there. That is what I am saying to my Bloc colleagues.

We are not the problem. Quite frankly, the Conservatives are the ones blocking this. We have seen them doing this kind of thing before. The bickering needs to stop so we can move forward with the debate. At least we have started it tonight. However, we need to move forward with this bill to get the national freeze on handguns passed.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the minister is approaching this issue from a very personal position, and I appreciate that, but I think we have to be very clear. I think the minister would agree with me that Bill C-21 by itself is not going to solve the very complex problem of gun crime. It is going to require a whole host of measures working together.

At the public safety committee, our first study in this Parliament was on gun and gang violence, and witness after witness was correlating the rise in gun crime with the drug trade. The government, just a few short weeks ago, did vote against Bill C-216, which would have decriminalized personal possession, set up a national strategy and set up expungement. I do not want to get into a debate about that, but I think the onus is now on the Government of Canada to explain what its next steps will be to address the incredibly high profit margins that exist in the drug trade that are driving the violence in big cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

It is the highly addictive nature of fentanyl and carfentanil and the massive profit margins that are leading to gangs competing with one another for that turf. That is driving a lot of the gun violence. In the absence of supporting Bill C-216, can the minister tell us what the next steps are to address that very specific problem?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for really highlighting one of the complexities that confronts us in our effort to make our communities safer, whether they are dealing with gun violence or they are dealing with the violence that is driven by organized crime in the illegal drug trade. I believe my hon. colleague would agree it is important that we disentangle those who find themselves in front of the criminal law by virtue of substance abuse and mental health issues through substance use from those other individuals who, with no care or regard whatsoever for public safety or for our communities, go out and, again, for pure commercial purposes and for greed, visit incredible public harm on them. That is why we are taking an approach, first and foremost, of working with his home province of British Columbia to address the substance abuse challenge with the pilot project with the B.C. government.

However, when it comes to interdicting drug trafficking crime by organized crime that is commingled with gun crime, Bill C-21 would raise maximum sentences and also provide police with additional powers.

I will just say one thing very quickly in closing. My colleague is absolutely right. Bill C-21 by itself is not a foolproof guarantee. We have to take a look at this in the broader context of a comprehensive strategy, as I explained in my remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister talked about statistics and data, so I have a simple question about the facts and the data that I am sure the minister had before he brought this legislation forward.

Considering that all legal handguns in Canada are restricted and registered, and we know statistically that law-abiding firearms owners are the most law-abiding demographic in Canada, I would like the minister to tell the House, out of all handgun crimes committed since 2015, how many were committed with legal handguns. I would note that I asked his officials the same question last week, with the reassurance they were going to provide that data to the minister, so I am expecting an answer tonight.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question does allow me to highlight the fact that even though some guns, many guns in fact, are legally purchased and possessed by law-abiding owners for whom we have the utmost respect, those guns can be stolen. Handguns have been stolen and assault-style rifles have been stolen and subsequently used in the commission of offences.

I would also point out that one of the challenges around the issue of introducing evidence is traceability. That is why what Bill C-21 would do, in conjunction with additional investments in budget 2022, is give more tools and resources to law enforcement and to the CBSA so that we can better trace the source of guns. That is something I would hope my hon. colleague would support. It is a common-sense measure and it is a way in which we can ensure justice.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to put words on the record concerning Bill C-21.

We have a very serious gun violence problem in the country, one that Conservatives across the country are deeply concerned about. I have to say that when there were rumours that this announcement from the Liberals was coming forward and it was going to be a big splashy event at the Château Laurier here in downtown Ottawa, I was looking forward to hearing something that could really make a meaningful impact on this devastating issue that has ripped families apart and taken innocent lives. However, I was left feeling deeply, deeply disappointed. It was a missed opportunity to provide real hope for Canadians that gun violence would go down.

What is interesting is that since the Prime Minister formed government seven years ago, gun violence and violent crime in Canada has consistently gone up. It has never been so bad since I have been alive when it comes to the gun statistics in this country and those killing each other with guns in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Vancouver. It is a serious, serious issue. That is why I felt so let down by the government's announcement, because it will not make any meaningful impact on gun violence and we so desperately needed a meaningful announcement.

I am going to mention a couple of crime statistics, because they are very alarming. Homicide rates went up 7% from last year. That is a consistent increase, year over year over year, 7% more from last year, so now two out of 100,000 Canadians are victims of a homicide. Violent crime, again, is up 5% in the last six years. Firearm-related offences increased for the sixth year in a row. These are stats from last year, so we will see what they are this year, but from the police reports, it sounds like it is going to be one of the worst years on record. Homicides are at a 30-year high and at least a third of them are committed with firearms.

I represent a riding in Winnipeg. It is ranked the violent crime capital of Canada, frankly, year over year, so I know first-hand the devastation that gun crime and violent crime cause in communities, especially our vulnerable communities.

In fact, in Toronto, in 2014, before the Prime Minister came to office, there were 177 instances where firearms were shot illegally. Now that number is up to 462. Is has gone from 177 to 462 in Toronto. Clearly, the Liberal approach is a resounding failure when it comes to keeping our communities safe. It is a fact that our communities are less safe. Canadians are less safe since the Prime Minister took office. Again, the Liberals had the opportunity to address that at their announcement, but they failed to do so.

In Winnipeg we have serious concerns. Winnipeg's North End is a predominantly indigenous community that suffers significantly with addictions, homicides, violent crimes, domestic abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse. In fact, in Manitoba, child and family services remove the most children per capita than anywhere else in the world, and at least 90% to 97% of them are indigenous. Our prisons at all levels are filled with indigenous youth. It is a serious problem that we are facing in this country.

We have also the missing and murdered indigenous women. Indigenous women in Manitoba are most impacted by those horrendous statistics, and yet we have Bill C-5 from the government. On one hand, the minister said in his speech that he is increasing maximum penalties for firearm offences, some of them, to send a message to criminals, while on the other hand, his colleague is eliminating mandatory prison time for serious firearm offences.

We are talking about robbery with a firearm. If a person robs someone at gunpoint, there is no guarantee that person is going to prison now. The individual may actually get to serve house arrest in the community where the person caused the violent crime. Extortion with a firearm and firing a firearm with the intent to injure someone, that is, shooting at someone and planning to hit them with the bullet, no longer results in mandatory prison time under the Liberal government. There is using a firearm in committing a crime, and I could go on. In fact, someone who is a drug trafficker will no longer face mandatory prison time under Bill C-5.

On one hand, the Liberals say they are getting tough on criminals. On the other hand, they are letting them completely off the hook, allowing them to serve, perhaps, house arrest in the communities they have terrorized.

There is the removal of the mandatory prison time for drug trafficking, which is deeply related, as my NDP colleague referred to in his question, to gun violence in the country. Just last year, over 7,000 Canadians died from drug overdoses, mostly opioids, that is, fentanyl, carfentanil. It was more deadly for young people to die from a drug overdose than COVID. That is how serious the drug epidemic in this country is.

We all have different approaches on how to solve that, but I would say that removing mandatory prison time for the individuals who push drugs on vulnerable Canadians, who traffic drugs into this country, is the wrong approach.

They are responsible for murdering thousands of Canadians, especially in B.C. It is especially an issue with young people, so the government's approach to firearms and violent crime, despite the rise in statistics, does not make sense.

Then we have the government bringing forward this handgun freeze. The minister has consistently said that we are stopping this trend with the handgun freeze, but we know that the handguns used in Toronto gang crimes are not from legal gun owners. They are smuggled in from the United States, and I will get to that.

What I think is particularly interesting is all the individuals, particularly police, who have come out to say that handgun bans and buybacks will not work. They will not work to address the rising gun violence in this country.

In fact, I will start with an interesting quote here by an individual who said, “The long-gun registry, as it was, was a failure.... There are better ways of keeping us safe than that registry which...has been removed.” We are not talking about the registry today, but it was a gun control mechanism that was brought in formerly by a Liberal government, so I think it is relevant.

This individual said, “I grew up with long guns, rifles and shotguns.... The RCMP guarding me had handguns and I got to play with them every now and then”, although the RCMP was “very responsible” around him. He said, “I was raised with an appreciation and an understanding of how important in rural areas and right across the country gun ownership is as a part of the culture of Canada.” It was a very important person who said this. He continued, “I do not feel that there's any huge contradiction between keeping our cities safe from gun violence and gangs, and allowing this important facet of Canadian identity which is having a gun.”

That was the Prime Minister of Canada, back in 2012 or 2013. Wow, how times have changed.

In reference to a handgun ban, another important individual of the Liberal government said, “I believe that would be potentially a very expensive proposition but just as importantly, it would not in my opinion be perhaps the most effective measure in restricting the access that criminals would have to such weapons, because we’d still have a problem with them being smuggled across the border”. That was the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the former minister of public safety. Those were his words.

There is also the deputy chief of the Toronto Police Service, Myron Demkiw, who deals with this on the front line and puts his life on the line dealing with criminals shooting guns in downtown Toronto. He and his officers put their lives on the line to keep communities safe from gun violence. In reference to guns, he said, “They're not domestically sourced. They are internationally sourced. Our problem in Toronto is handguns from the United States.” I asked him about the handgun ban and the buyback proposed by the government, which is going forward, and he said, “Investing in what you described is certainly not going to deal with the crime problem we're facing in Toronto as it relates to criminal handguns and the use of criminal handguns. We believe an investment upstream is a very valuable focus of resources.” When I asked him if we should invest more in police or if we should ban guns, that was his response. Clearly, he does not believe it will be effective, and he is someone at the epicentre of gun violence in this country.

In fact, I have pages and pages of quotes from frontline officers, who deal with this more than anybody else, who have said that bans will not work because they do not tackle the problem.

We recently studied this issue, guns and gangs, at the national security and public safety committee, for which I am the vice-chair. We had a very robust debate. We had police experts. We had crime experts. We had community advocates. Not one recommendation in that report was to ban handguns, because none of the experts, none of the police experts and none of the community anti-gang experts said that that would be a solution. All of them said that that would not work, because we know from the Toronto police that over 85% of the handguns used in violent crimes in Toronto are smuggled in from the United States. This is a serious and growing problem that the government has failed to address.

I am an MP from Winnipeg. Recently, I took a tour of the Winnipeg police headquarters, where they showed me a half-a-million-dollar drug bust: all these deadly opioids, piles of cash and a very long table with all the firearms they had seized from the gangsters who were responsible. They are making these busts monthly. I took a look at all the guns. They said that, number one, every single gun on that table was already prohibited, not just restricted but prohibited. No one would have been able to legally get those guns in the country, no matter what kind of licence a person had. The second thing they said was that all of them were smuggled in from the United States. Then they showed me a map of the train tracks across North America, major rail lines that went all the way from Mexico, all the way through the central United States, all the way to Winnipeg.

They suspect that a significant number of the drugs and the guns from the United States that are killing Canadians are coming in on rail, so at committee I asked the border agents why they cannot stop it. They said they do not have the capacity, beyond checking one one-millionth, which is effectively none, of the railcars coming into Canada. We also have very little capacity to check marine ports of entry. We are struggling on retention issues at the border. We need many more border officers and much increased and improved technology to stop gun smuggling. All experts agree that this is where the problem is coming from.

The current government has spent more money than any government in history, actually all combined, if we look at deficits. If it really wanted to solve gun violence, it would be dumping billions of dollars into the border to shore up our security, because of course we share the longest undefended border in the world with a country that has more guns than people. Therefore, we have to get real about the Herculean effort it is going to take to stop this problem, which I think every single person in this House agrees we must do.

I am going to talk about police. I mentioned the police. We know that, particularly in rural Canada but in cities as well, the police are struggling to respond to calls. If there is a break and enter in Winnipeg, it may take them a month to come and investigate it because they are so overwhelmed with gun violence and violent crimes. That is how bad it is getting. Do not even get me started on the calls for service in rural Canada. It is unbearable for people in rural Canada.

The answer is that we need far more police and far more investments in guns and gangs units in this country. If we talk to police officers on the front lines, they will say that they are strapped and cannot keep up with demand. Drug and gun deaths are going up and they need more help. Therefore, it is about border security investments and police guns and gangs unit investments. That is what would make a real difference in reducing gun violence, significant investment.

As well, at committee we had a number of remarkable people from the grassroots community in Toronto. One of them, Marcell Wilson, was a hardened criminal who was rehabilitated. He turned his life around and started the One by One Movement. The One by One Movement saves at-risk youth in vulnerable communities from joining a life of gangs and following a life of crime. This man and his organization are saving young people from this life of crime. There is a similar organization in my community, called the Bear Clan Patrol. It really focuses on Winnipeg's north end, which is dealing with a lot of trauma. There are community organizations like this all across the country. They need significant investment and support from all levels of government. That is a long-term solution for the gun violence we are seeing.

I think there is a lot we can agree on with respect to this. The minister talked about red flag laws, increasing the penalties for those who try to smuggle guns into this country, and a few other minor things that I think all members of this House can agree on, so today, in very good faith, we talked to the other parties and we brought forward the following motion. I was not allowed to read it because I was cut off, but I will read it now into the record. This motion was to be brought forward so we can depoliticize this issue. Conservatives firmly believe, as do nearly all firearms owners in this country, that the current government does not have an interest in solving gun violence but wants to stigmatize and divide Canadians on this issue. Therefore, we wanted to take the politics out of it and say that there are parts of this bill we are really keen on, so we can work together, get them to committee, study them and get them passed. Let us quicken the process and save lives, hopefully, if they are effective, which we will find out at committee. Let us put the really difficult political issues through the debate in the House. This is not something that is foreign. We split bills. That is a possibility. It is a democratic tool that we have.

I wanted to say, before I was cut off by Liberal members, that given that the debate on combatting gun violence needs to be depoliticized and centred on the rights of victims and the safety of communities, the House should call on the government to divide Bill C-21 into two parts to allow for those measures where there is broad support across all parties to proceed separately, namely curbing domestic violence and tackling the flow of guns over the Canada-U.S. border, from those aspects of the bill that divide the House. That is fairly collaborative, I would say.

I have to say that Liberal, Conservative, Bloc and NDP members on the public safety committee have worked very well together. We really tried to put our politics aside and we came up with a really great guns and gangs study that we all signed on to. Can members imagine all parties signing on to a guns and gangs study? It is unheard of.

That is how we can work together and how I have shown that I can work together with others on this issue to create real solutions. When I attempted to do that in the House today, the Liberals shot it down, so I will take no lessons from them about playing politics with this. We made a good-faith effort today and they shot it down.

I also want to talk about some of the people who are impacted by this ban. The minister said something very odd recently on the news. He said that this bill does not impact law-abiding citizens and it does not impact law-abiding gun owners. I am not sure if he has read his own bill, because this bill, the handgun freeze, impacts only legal owners. It impacts only people who follow the law.

I will remind the House that those who possess RPAL, the restricted licence, need to be trained, vetted and background-checked. They are some of the most background-checked individuals in the country, and with good reason. Conservatives support very strict gun laws in this country. Only the most responsible, law-abiding citizens should ever come near a gun.

We have a situation where those individuals are the only ones being targeted by this. It is not the criminals in Toronto. They do not care. They are laughing about this handgun freeze. They already own them illegally. They are carrying them around and shooting up their communities illegally now. Do members think they care about a handgun freeze? They are laughing; it is ridiculous.

I would like to talk about some of the individuals who are impacted by this, because I think it is pretty important. Some of them are in the sport shooting community. There is a large sport shooting community. For folks who are watching at home, if they do not own a firearm or have never been around one, I understand this is very foreign to them. I understand. I am not a sport shooter myself, so it is not something that necessarily impacts me.

However, it certainly impacts our Olympic sport shooting community, which has thousands and thousands of sport shooters below it: associations, provincial competitions, national competitions, international competitions. This bill would end that sport in Canada, a sport in which we have competed at the Olympic level for well over a hundred years. The Liberals say they have consulted, but I am hearing from the very large, law-abiding sport shooting community that it has not had a call from the minister. The Liberals are not giving any dignity to these individuals, while ripping apart a major part of their cultural heritage in this country without even a conversation.

The Liberals are trying to push this through at committee with no debate, with a sneaky UC motion at committee. They do not even want to debate it. They want to do it today and completely eliminate any dignity from a large part of this country that values sport shooting and is proud of it. These people pass down their firearms to their daughters and sons. That is all eliminated. I just do not understand how the Liberals can bring forward something like this with no consultation with the community it impacts the most, because it is not impacting the illegal community. It is not impacting the individuals who are killing people in our cities.

If one looks at the crime stats and the trends since the Prime Minister took office, one would think the Liberals would bring forward a bill that would go after the problem, but no, they have chosen politics. They have chosen to go after the individuals who are least likely to commit crimes. Lawful gun owners are actually three times less likely to commit crimes, because they are so vetted and so background-checked, as it should be.

It is infuriating. I cannot tell members how many calls I have received from across the country, from women, educated people, professionals, doctors, pilots and academics who engage in sport shooting. They are asking why they are being attacked again by the government and why the government is not going after the problem. It is spending billions of dollars. The sky is the limit. Why is it not spending it in the cities so we can save people?

It is unbelievable. I can go on and on about this. I am very passionate about it, as I am sure we all are from our own perspectives, but I am willing to work and collaborate on the elements of this bill that we do agree on. That was shot down today, but maybe the Liberals will agree another day.

I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.”

The purpose of my motion is to say we have to go back to the drawing board. This is not going to work. It is not going to solve gun violence. Conservatives will work together on the committee to solve gun violence in this country. We will collaborate and bring forward real solutions to tackle the problem, which is criminals and gangs smuggling guns in from the United States and hurting our communities.

Rest assured.

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Public Safety.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague for her impassioned speech, but unfortunately, substantial portions of it are just factually inaccurate.

For example, the statistics demonstrated an increase in gun violence that predated our government and occurred in part as a result of the massive and deep cuts to frontline law enforcement that were imposed by the last Conservative government, which this government then proceeded to restore when we first took office in 2015. As a result of the nearly $1 billion that we put back into the system, we were indeed able to provide additional resources, tools and technology to law enforcement, including in my hon. colleague's hometown of Winnipeg, where she just acknowledged that local police, with the benefit of federal funding—which she acknowledged to me, to her credit, the last time I went to committee—were positive contributing factors to the progress we made in stopping illegal guns from crossing the border.

At a minimum, she should acknowledge that, but the real problem that my colleague and the Conservative Party have on this issue is that they have no plan, no alternative, except for repeatedly stating that they would make assault-style rifles legal again. That has been their stated policy position for quite some time. I am simply stating what has been well known publicly for some time.

What is the alternative plan?

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

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, my statistics are certainly accurate. They were taken from Statistics Canada, which shows the massive increase in gun violence in our cities. I know that may make the minister uncomfortable, but those are the facts.

I did acknowledge, of course, in committee, and I will acknowledge it again, that we appreciate some of the small investments they have made in policing. I will not give him a pat on the back beyond that. The Toronto Star is doing more than enough of that, so I think he has enough.

Half of my speech was about what the Conservatives would do. I would say that I am fairly knowledgeable about this. I have spoken to hundreds of police officers and hundreds of experts across the country, as have the hard-working members of the public safety committee. We would take all the money the Liberals are wasting on bans and buybacks—which is going to be billions of dollars, by the way—and put it into borders, more police and grassroots organizations that save young people from a life of crime. I have been very clear all along on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague's comment about it not being true that the opposition parties never propose anything. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing a joint peacekeeping unit with the United States for months. Today we learned that Quebec invested $6.2‑million to address this issue, even though borders are a federal responsibility. It is a little strange, but things are not moving quickly on the federal government side.

The Minister of Public Safety tells us that Bill C‑21 will address the dramatic increase in daily shootings in Montreal and elsewhere in Canada. However, I read Bill C‑21, and it deals with weapons that are legally purchased in Canada.

I may be mistaken, but from what I understand, criminal gangs are behind these shootings, and they get their illegal firearms from traffickers. I could be wrong, though, because the Minister of Public Safety seems to think that criminals buy their guns at Canadian Tire or some other gun shop before going out to shoot up schools or other places.

Does my colleague think I am mistaken or does she also think that criminal gangs, and not local businesses, are supplying these guns?

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

Madam Speaker, I could not have said it better myself. I agree completely that this bill, as he said, does surely target lawful firearms owners and does not go after the criminals shooting up our cities, including Montreal, where there have been deaths and where young people are at risk of dying from drive-by shootings. We are now seeing this almost every single day in Montreal.

The minister, respectfully, has kind of been parading around as though Bill C-21 is the big solution and is going to end handguns. He knows it will not. He has to know that. He knows. He is smart. He knows the issue is with illegally smuggled guns and the gangs who illegally possess them and use them to shoot up our cities. This bill would do nothing to address that, and I agree completely with my Bloc colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. She is quite right that we have a good working relationship.

I have two questions. The first one is that through a technical reading of the bill—because she did talk about lawful gun owners—my understanding of Bill C-21 is that if it becomes law, current owners of handguns could still legally use them. People could still go to a range to fire handguns under the supervision of an RPAL holder, especially if the range owns a collection of handguns. I am just wondering if she can clarify whether that is her understanding of the bill as well.

My second question is about this being a very complex problem. She quoted a lot of police officers. Let me also quote from Staff Sergeant Michael Rowe of the Vancouver Police Department, who also appeared before the public safety committee. He identified straw purchases and the diversion of legally owned handguns as also being big problems.

Therefore, two things can be true here: We can have a problem from gun smuggling, but there is also a problem from the illegal diversion of legally owned handguns. If we ignore that and focus only on the smuggling problem, we are doing a disservice to public safety. Would she not admit that domestic diversion is also a problem, as was clearly identified by Staff Sergeant Michael Rowe of the Vancouver Police Department?

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

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed working with the hon. member on the committee.

On his second question, there is no data available on how many guns in this country are diverted from legal owners, or stolen, as they said. This is sort of a red herring argument.

There is, of course, anecdotal evidence to suggest that this may be part of the problem. I do not believe the officer in question said it was a huge part, but certainly there are methods we can use to reduce straw purchases. One of them is safe storage. We can incentivize safe storage. For the guns legally owned, like the ones I own and the guns others in this place own, the more we can incentivize safe storage in gun safes and the like, the less we will have that as an issue. That should be part of this debate. How we can incentivize safe storage should be part of this bill, because that would make a meaningful impact on something that contributes a very small part to this problem.

Again, I have three or four pages of police saying this bill will do nothing.

On the member's first question, what I am hearing from sport shooters and the elite sport shooters is that this bill would be the death of their sport. There are thousands of these sport shooters. Actually, the Filipinos in my community love sport shooting. They compete provincially, nationally and internationally. They told me they are devastated by this bill. It means that the handguns they bought and the guns they inherited from their fathers, which they plan to give to their daughters and pass along, and these are expensive devices, will no longer be legal.

The opposition is sighing and making fun of this. This is exactly the lack of respect for legal firearm owners that we have seen from the Liberal members. They say, “Too bad, so sad for them.” That—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot from the government about its input measures. The Liberals spend more than anybody else. That is their common response. Since the bill has been introduced and since the Prime Minister contradicted the earlier quotes he himself made in 2012, which the member mentioned, I am curious about something.

We have heard claims that Bill C-21 will reduce gun crime in our cities, but we have been unable to nail the government down on the actual targets that this measure will hit in terms of crime reduction in the cities. There is not much use in introducing this kind of legislation unless there are actually specific targets that we think it will hit. Could the member comment on whether, either in committee or in the discussions she had with the department and other officials, the government has set any actual goals for what this will do in having a positive effect in reducing gun crime?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to address the disrespect from the members opposite.

When my grandfather was a young boy, he saved up every penny to buy a rifle that he could go hunting with to sustain his very poor family. He cherished this gun, and when he was dying in palliative care—

I am speaking to the member, actually, through you, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you can learn something about gun culture in this country and the importance of it in—

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

I am going to interrupt the hon. member. This lack of respect is quite generalized in the House, so I am not going to start appropriating blame. I appreciate that the hon. member is telling a personal story and I am listening very attentively.

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

Madam Speaker, when he was dying in the final weeks of his life, he brought this gun. It was wrapped up very nicely. He brought it and the cleaning tools to our house. He died about a month later. He brought it and he gifted it to my father, something very symbolically important that goes back over the five generations that we have lived in rural Canada, struggling to sustain ourselves until the two most recent generations. He gave it to my father, and my father will give it to me.

This is a very critical and important part of this discussion that is missing, that needs to be respected, that is lacking and is being laughed at by members opposite. This is why people get so divided and upset about this. It is because there is no dignity given from Liberal members to rural Canada and the heritage that we, with every fibre of our being, believe in—

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

We have to resume debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to finally speak to Bill C-21.

We had almost given up hope of hearing about a gun control bill before the end of the parliamentary session. The government finally introduced a bill last week, perhaps somewhat reactively. That is typical of the Liberal government, always reacting to events. Unfortunately, a few days ago, there was the massacre in Texas. Also a few days ago, shots were fired near a child care centre in Rivière-des-Prairies, in the greater Montreal area. I get the impression that these kinds of events are what finally pushed the government to act. That is fine, but it is unfortunate that violent events like these have to happen before the government introduces legislation that we have long been calling for.

My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and I make it our mission during virtually every question period to remind the minister that taking action on gun control is important. That is our topic this evening, but legal weapons are not the only problem. Illegal weapons and arms trafficking, especially in Quebec, but also across Canada, are problems too. I think legislation is long overdue. The Bloc Québécois made it clear elsewhere, in the media for example, that it thinks Bill C‑21 is a step in the right direction.

Quite honestly, the previous version of the bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament, pleased nobody. Neither groups for gun control nor those against it liked the bill. It was flawed. I will say that the government really listened to groups advocating for women and victims of shootings. They came to talk to the government and tell it which important elements they thought should be included in the bill. Clearly a lot has changed since the first version, and that is great.

However, we need to point out some elements that are perhaps more negative. As I was saying, unfortunately, Bill C‑21 does not solve all the problems. Currently, one of the biggest problems in the greater Montreal area is the shootings being carried out by criminal groups. They are obtaining weapons illegally. There have been shootings in the past with firearms that were 100% legal and that belonged to licensed gun owners who had no mental health issues or criminal records. It does happen, but not very often. I have the impression that most of the shootings happening these days involve illegal firearms. We must find a way to address this problem.

There was talk earlier about how Quebec has been proactive and has almost done everything that we have been calling on the federal government to do for months. We were with the minister this morning at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when the news dropped that Quebec will invest $6.2 million in the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service. Representatives from this police department came to tell the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security about their particular situation. Akwesasne is an indigenous community that straddles the borders of Quebec, Ontario and even the United States. This requires collaboration among the different police departments. Smugglers are very familiar with this area, where trafficking is done by boat in the summer and by snowmobile in the winter. Weapons come through the area by the hundreds every week. The federal government needs to get involved because it is responsible for the borders.

This morning, Quebec announced $6.2 million for police services. This money will be used to hire five additional police officers and to purchase a new patrol boat, an all-terrain vehicle and snowmobiles to bolster the fight against gun smuggling in Quebec. This is great news. While making this announcement, Geneviève Guilbault, Quebec's public safety minister, said she was still waiting on the money from an agreement with the federal government. The federal government promised funding to help Quebec and the provinces crack down on firearms, but it seems they are still waiting for this money. They are anxious to receive it and continue this important fight.

Let us come back to Bill C‑21. This version is better than earlier ones, but there are still some flaws. Some elements seem poorly drafted. I think it is shameful that the government is rushing things and not letting us have the time to do our job as parliamentarians. I am guessing that is what it intends to do, since that is what has been happening in the House of Commons over the past few days. By constantly invoking closure, the government is trying to shorten debate by a few hours in order to move forward more quickly. However, it is actually our job as parliamentarians to take the time to study bills, debate them in the House, make amendments and improve them. That is what I intend to do with Bill C‑21.

I want to try to work constructively with the government to improve the bill. I want to come back to the motion my Conservative colleague wanted to move today at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I must say that she stated in good faith that there are some elements of the bill that we can all agree on. Let us move forward quickly with those measures, while taking the time to study the rest more closely.

The Liberals did not agree, obviously, for partisan political reasons. On the other hand, when the Liberals try to speed things along, the Conservatives oppose them. Let us try to be more constructive and work together like we do at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. As my colleague mentioned earlier, we very much agree on the firearms issue, to the point where it feels almost unprecedented. We have managed to work together quite well, which is important to highlight.

I want to discuss all aspects of the bill, beginning with the measure about handguns. This is really the government's key measure, which proposes a freeze on the acquisition, sale and transfer of handguns by individuals. This was quite unexpected. I myself was surprised to hear this. I never thought the government would go so far.

It was the way it proceeded that surprised me a bit. The way this was announced at the press conference made it sound like the freeze was part of Bill C‑21. A little later, the government realized that it could proceed through regulations, which is a whole other procedure. It would be 30 business days before this came into effect. Those 30 business days left enough time for those who already had a licence to go out and buy more guns. Gun sales exploded across the country. I saw a B.C. gun seller on CTV News who said that the Prime Minister had become “salesman of the month”. That really is the message he sent to people.

The government's intention was to reduce the number of handguns in circulation, but it had the opposite effect. That is a shame, because I think there was another way to go about this. Take for example the assault weapons ban on May 1, 2020. The government compiled a list of 1,500 banned guns, and the ban came into effect immediately. People did not have time to go out and buy a gun before the ban took effect.

I wonder why the government chose a freeze instead of a ban and why it did that through regulations, when we were led to believe it would be in the bill from the start. Questions like that remain unanswered.

I think it is especially unfortunate that the government did not anticipate that people would rush to the store to buy more guns. Perhaps they should have taken more time to iron out all the details before presenting them.

Our understanding is that once the freeze is in place, handguns will eventually disappear because they can no longer be transferred to someone else. People who currently have a permit will be able to continue to use their guns. Of course, there are some exceptions for police officers and bodyguards who have a firearms licence. It is still unclear what will happen with sport shooters. We are being told that the government will establish by regulation what it all means, but questions are already popping up.

The procedures in Quebec are quite strict already. I get the sense that these regulations will not necessarily change much in Quebec, but I will come back to that.

I would like to say that I am not a firearms expert. It is easy enough to go on social media, demonize me and say that I have no clue what I am talking about.

Recently, I was asked if I knew the procedure for buying a weapon. It is actually fairly complex. I will give the people who asked me this: It may happen overnight in the United States, for example, but not here.

Gun culture is a thing in the United States, and it is pretty intense. We are worried it might spread to Canada. Acquiring a firearm, however, is very different. After the Texas shooting a few days ago, people from Le Journal de Montréal went down there to run a test and find out how individuals get firearms. What they found out is that all one needs is a driver's licence and 15 minutes to walk out of the store with a gun and ammo. In Texas, it takes longer to buy a car than a weapon. That is pretty unbelievable.

In Canada, the rules are stricter, and I think that is a good thing. People who choose to pursue their passion for firearms and make it their hobby need to understand that weapons are dangerous. That is why they need to be regulated. It all needs to be governed by regulations. I think we have to be cognizant of that.

If someone in Quebec wants to obtain a handgun right now, they have to complete several training courses. There is the Canadian firearms safety course, the Canadian restricted firearms safety course and the Bill 9 aptitude test. Next, they have to apply for a possession and acquisition licence. That can take around six months. Lastly, the individual has to join a shooting club. That is a requirement in Quebec.

I will admit that this is not a simple process and cannot be done overnight. I sometimes hear the rhetoric that guns are not dangerous, that the person pulling the trigger is dangerous. I have to disagree. Guns are dangerous.

As I was saying, anyone using this device or tool, I am not sure what to call it, needs to be aware that it is dangerous. Anyone choosing to use a firearm must be aware that it could be used by a person with bad intentions and that firearm regulations make sense.

What we understand is that with the freeze handguns will eventually disappear. We also understand that for people who train to use guns competitively, there may be a way to get around the rules. Reading legislation or regulations is rather complicated. However, when we take the time to read between the lines, we sometimes see certain details that may be questionable. That is true here, there are questionable details, and we certainly need to take this to committee to determine what it means.

The other thing is that the freeze may not do anything beyond what Quebec is already doing, in other words require that a person be a member of a gun club before being able to acquire a handgun. If a person is already a member of a gun club then there will be no real change. They will be grandfathered and allowed to continue using the handgun. These are questions I will have to ask during study of the bill.

I want to come back again to the fact that people have been rushing out to purchase handguns, because they know the regulations are not yet in effect. This shows that Bill C-21 will not solve the problem in the short term, so it does not meet its own objective. Guns continue to be a problem on our streets and in our municipalities, which is why people are increasingly concerned. We are reminded of this every day, given current events.

There was another car chase in broad daylight in a residential area in greater Montreal yesterday. Dozens of shots were fired. People were eating on their balconies and walking down the street, and they witnessed this first-hand. Fortunately there were no casualties, but there could have been injuries and even fatalities. It has practically become the norm in Montreal, in Quebec. It is scary when you think about it. It is also scary for parents to send their children to school, to go to work, or to go anywhere for that matter, because in the last few months, there have been shots fired near a day care centre, near schools and even in a library. The library's windows shattered because of the gunfire. It is unbelievable.

This notorious gun culture, which I mentioned earlier and is entrenched in the United States, seems to be gradually taking hold in Canada, and no one wants that. Unfortunately, Bill C-21 gives us no reassurance that it will solve this problem. It might solve certain things and it might be a step in the right direction, but the terrible problem of gun trafficking remains prevalent. Bill C-21 does not address this.

I want to share some statistics. According to the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, 95% of handguns used in violent crimes come from the black market. During question period we often hear that organized crime uses illegal weapons and that members of these organizations are the ones committing crimes most of the time.

I often hear people say that we are going after good, law-abiding gun owners. This is true in some cases, but not always. As I said earlier, mass shootings with legal firearms are rare, but they do happen.

We made a lot of proposals that were not included in Bill C‑21 in an attempt to find a number of measures that would work best together. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord introduced Bill C‑279 to create an organized crime registry.

The way we see it, giving police officers more tools and means to act is another way we can control firearms. Why is being a member of a terrorist group illegal but being a member of organized crime is not? This is a fair question because organized crime groups are behind the violence we are seeing in the big cities right now. I think that this bill could be a worthwhile, easy-to-implement tool, and I urge the minister and his colleagues to read it.

We have heard a great deal about investments at the border, and I just mentioned the investments made by Quebec. We must not forget that the border is under federal jurisdiction and that there is work to be done there. Witnesses told us about what is actually happening at the border. Even border services officers told us that they were ready for their mandate to be expanded and that they would like to patrol the areas between border crossings, which they currently cannot do. It is true that the Canada-U.S. border is so long that it is almost impossible to have officers covering every kilometre of it. However, the mandate of these officers could be expanded so they could go on patrol.

My colleague also reminded us earlier that smuggled guns and drugs arrive in Canada by boat and by train. We do not have the tools we need to search these conveyances. These types of measures could certainly help the fight against firearms, especially those that are illegal.

Thanks to a motion that I moved a few months ago in the House, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security was able to study this problem. It was the topic of its first report, which was tabled recently in the House. The report contains several recommendations for more resources and more collaboration. On that subject, the RCMP commissioner admitted to the committee that police forces could talk to each other more and share more information.

Experts from public safety agencies agreed with every point and argument we made and told us that we do indeed need to provide more financial and human resources. It is a problem that we will not be able to fix in the short term, but we should start working on it immediately.

The National Police Federation told me that the police forces are short on officers and will not be able to get more overnight. I learned that dozens of officers are deployed every week to Roxham Road to receive irregular migrants. The Government of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois have been calling for that road to be closed so that the migrants can be received the regular way through a safe, normal process. This would allow these officers to be reassigned to the fight against guns.

Madam Speaker, since you are signalling that my time is up, I will end there and I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Bill C-21 is being considered without quorum, and for Hansard it should be noted that a debate is happening contrary to the constitutional requirement that the House cannot depart from its own code of procedure when the procedure is entrenched in the Constitution of Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the hon. member that quorum does not apply right now.

On May 2, the House duly adopted an order prescribing that the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls after 6:30 p.m. The Chair delivered a ruling as to the admissibility of the motion, including the section dealing with quorum calls during extended sittings of the House in May and June. The ruling can be found in the Debates of May 2, 2022, at pages 4,577 and 4,578. I would invite the member to read the ruling of the Speaker to find that this matter has already been settled.

This has been raised on a number of occasions, and we have read the same information into the record. There is no debate. I have already ruled on the quorum.

On another point of order, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that the Constitution actually trumps the order of the Speaker, or of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

This is now becoming a debate or a challenge to the Chair, which is not acceptable.

The hon. deputy government whip.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to congratulate the minister and the government for putting forth this legislation. I know that Canadians, and especially my constituents of Brampton North, have been feeling for a while that enough is enough and that governments need to take action on gun crime and gun control. In 2019, the government put forward action to ban assault rifles, and that process is ongoing. This legislation will complement that action.

From the member's speech, I know she cares about this issue very much. The member specifically mentioned smuggling over the border and illegal guns coming into the country. Would the member support this legislation, since a large portion of the legislation has to do with that very piece? We are increasing maximum penalties from 10 years to 14 years with this piece of legislation, and much more goes hand in hand with this. The government previously put $350 million in to strengthen the RCMP and CBSA, and $250 million—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I do have other members who want ask questions. This is questions and comments, not debate. I will allow the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, I can see that my colleague is very familiar with the file, and I thank her for that. Of course I talked about the negative first and left the positive to the end, but I did not have time to get to the positive. I must admit that Bill C-21 does actually contain some good measures, such as the red flag and yellow flag measures. As I pointed out earlier, the minister has been very attentive to various groups and what they were calling for.

I said that I would work constructively with the government to improve any aspects that are perhaps less positive. When it comes time to vote, we will see whether the Bloc Québécois will support this bill.

I would also have liked to see something on assault weapons in this bill. What we heard from the Prime Minister at his press conference was that the buyback program would be postponed and that public consultation would begin later. A lot of work remains to be done on this, unfortunately, and we can talk about that at another time.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the points that the member made. I appreciate the respect she has for legal gun owners, unlike some members of the Liberal party.

Can the member tell the House what we heard in committee about Akwesasne and gun smuggling and whether this bill will resolve the problem?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her French, which I must say is excellent. I thank her for making the effort to ask this question.

Indeed, this subject concerned me in committee. The opposition parties cannot invite as many witnesses as the government, but I still made an effort to invite the band council for the indigenous communities of the Akwesasne territory and the Akwesasne Mohawk Police Service to appear.

They came to explain their reality to us. They are often demonized in the media and accused of being complicit in this arms trafficking, which is definitely not the case. They asked to be partnered with other police forces in this fight, and that is exactly what the Quebec government did today by giving them the means to act. Unfortunately, that is not what Bill C-21 does for them.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy serving with my colleague on the public safety committee.

During the course of her speech, she very much highlighted the problems with smuggling and Canada sharing a border with the United States, which is the largest gun manufacturer in the world. We know that gun smugglers are finding creative ways to get them into Canada. There was a story last month about criminals using a drone to bring handguns into Canada.

Therefore, it is going to require a set of policies. We have to work with our U.S. partners to tackle the supply, but I want to know about the demand side. Those guns are coming into Canada because there is a demand for them. I just wonder if the member can inform the House on some of the policies she thinks would be best to tackle the demand side of the gun equation here in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's question. Those were recommendations from the report that members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security agreed on. The government must invest more in community services to prevent youth from committing crimes and joining gangs. These changes do not happen overnight; they are a long-term proposition.

Mental health issues are another factor. Young people are radicalized or join gangs for many different reasons. I think it is important to invest in that kind of measure as well. It is complementary.

I feel compelled to ask the federal government once again to invest in health, to give Quebec and the provinces the means to take care of things by transferring the money they are entitled to. That has not yet happened, unfortunately. We need that money to take action for young people, to address mental health and to tackle guns.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for her speech.

According to Statistics Canada, 75% of gun deaths, the vast majority, are unrelated to gangs or crimes. They are suicides. Harvard research refutes the misconception that people who are determined to kill themselves will find a way, but the lethality of the chosen method is important.

Does my colleague think Bill C‑21 will reduce the number of suicides?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, but it brings another question to my mind. How did these gun owners get them in the first place?

Did they get them legally or illegally? That question needs to be asked.

Of course, it does not help that there are so many guns already out there. The fact that people have guns in their homes without any real restrictions, that they do not keep them out of the hands of children or prevent children from having easy access to them, certainly does not help.

I do agree that Bill C‑21 has a noble objective: to take as many handguns as possible out of circulation. This will certainly have a positive effect, since an individual who does not already have a licence will no longer be able to obtain a handgun. We will wait to see the figures, but we hope this will have a positive impact, because we are working together to improve this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech from the member, and I enjoy working with her on public safety. Reference has been made several times in tonight's speech to the study coming out of the public safety committee on guns, gangs and drug smuggling.

One piece of evidence that we heard from quite a few witnesses, including Statistics Canada, is that we do not really know the source of guns used in crime. Anecdotally, we think that most of them come from the United States of America, but we do not know for sure. I wonder if the member could comment on the gap in evidence or in data.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

That is something we addressed by asking public safety agencies to invest more in tracing in order to determine, once they are seized, where these guns are coming from.

However, once again, we need to give the police a way to seize these weapons and then share the information with other police forces. We need to make it easier for them to work together to obtain this type of information.

As the member said, it is hard right now to know where these guns are coming from. We can guess that many of them are from the United States, but were they brought in legally or illegally? Often, they came in illegally.

As for this sharing of information between security agencies and police forces, I think that improvements need to be made. Of course, this takes investments. That is what we recommended in the report, and I hope this will produce tangible results.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining colleagues from all parties in this debate tonight on Bill C-21.

I want to acknowledge the time I have enjoyed as the NDP's public safety critic. It is a big responsibility. There are many different departments to keep track of. I also want to say in deference to previous speakers that I have enjoyed working with the minister on a number of issues and with my Conservative and Bloc colleagues. I will echo previous comments tonight that we do enjoy a good working relationship. If we look at previous Parliaments, that might seem a bit odd for the public safety committee because we do deal with some fairly explosive issues where there is not always a lot of agreement to be found.

I come at this debate tonight as a representative of a rural riding. My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is about 4,700 square kilometres in size. A lot of the constituents whom I represent are responsible firearms owners. They enjoy going to the range. They enjoy using firearms for hunting and other recreational activities.

However, it has to be stated, and this is a key difference between Canada and our southern neighbours, that owning a firearm in Canada is a privilege. By far the vast majority of firearms owners in Canada respect that privilege. They use their firearms in a very safe and respectful manner. Gun safety and the careful operation and storage of guns have always been paramount to the constituents that I have spoken to.

Indeed, I do have a lot of friends who are firearms owners. I grew up with firearms. My father has several that he inherited from his childhood. I have enjoyed spending time at various ranges throughout my riding. A few years ago, I was a guest at the Victoria fish and game club. Under the careful supervision of someone with a restricted possession and authorization licence, I was shown how to safely use a handgun at the range. There a lot of people who do enjoy the target shooting aspect of it.

I have seen a lot of debate on firearms before and during my time in Parliament and it is a pretty explosive issue. It can be very often used as a wedge in our political system. I want to find a way to talk about the legislation before us in a respectful way, one that lowers the temperature and where we can depolarize the debate while maybe seeking to make some parts of the bill better at committee.

I am trying to walk the line between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals sometimes have a tendency to put forward a bill, hold it up as a shiny trophy, and say it is going to fix the problem. The Conservatives on the other side tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to firearms legislation and their default position is to oppose. This is an issue where we have to walk the line between those two, where we recognize that legislation is important. We cannot simply say no for the sake of saying no, but we also have to realize that legislation by itself is not going to solve a problem as complex as gun violence. It has to be part and parcel of a whole range of things.

Bill C-21 in this Parliament does share the same number as the previous firearms legislation in the 43rd Parliament, which was also Bill C-21. That bill, however, never advanced past second reading. Unfortunately, it was allowed to die on the Order Paper when we had, in my view, the unnecessary election of 2021. There was a lot of hullabaloo about the introduction of that bill, but not a lot of effort was put forward by the government to advance it in any meaningful way.

Here we are again. We are in the 44th Parliament. We are in June. We have been at this for quite some time and we are only now just getting to the first round of second reading debate on the bill.

There is an important human element to this debate. Many lives have been lost in Canada to rising gun crime and we have to acknowledge that many communities are feeling unsafe.

Canadians want their government to act to prevent tragedies, not just respond to them. That is the proactive piece of the puzzle here, not just reacting to the bad news we often see. We need to demonstrate that follow-through and commitment to addressing firearms violence. That is where I think Bill C-21 comes into play. Not only is the smuggling of illegal firearms a big problem in Canada, but there is also a very real issue with the domestic diversion of legal firearms and the way they can find their way into the hands of criminals.

I am proud to be a member of a party that has supported the goal of getting military-style assault weapons off the streets. I support the plans for a mandatory buyback. That is a significant improvement over the voluntary buyback that was proposed in the previous Parliament, because we want to find a way of making sure that these weapons are forever off of our streets and do not pose a danger. Back in 2008, Jack Layton, our leader at the time, was the first political leader in Canada to propose giving municipalities the power to ban handguns within their jurisdictions.

I think whatever side of the spectrum we fall on with respect to this debate, we can all agree it is time for the government to get serious about tackling gun crime. We have different ideas on how that is to be achieved, but I think we agree on the same basic premise.

I want to give a nod to the public safety committee. The great report that we tabled earlier this year has been referenced in a few speeches tonight. That report was the result of 50 witnesses over seven meetings. We had numerous representatives from different police services across Canada, criminal defence lawyers, community organizations and also important government bodies like Statistics Canada. I want to acknowledge the Bloc Québécois for bringing forward that motion for a study. It resulted in 34 recommendations. We are awaiting a government response. I know that takes time, but I am looking forward to reading the government's response to those solid recommendations.

We had a number of recommendations. We realized that Statistics Canada needs additional resources. It has reported that there are gaps in its reporting. There are limitations in its knowledge about the firearms that are used in crimes. We need more information and details about particular firearms, their exact type, who owns them, how they are stored, whether the owners are licensed, and so on.

There was also a recommendation about increasing funding to the Canadian criminal intelligence service to enable comprehensive intelligence sharing across all police services so we can improve their effectiveness in tracing firearms. There was a recognition that smuggling is a significant contributor to gun and gang violence in Canada and that more resources must be allocated to combatting it. Also, the Government of Canada, as part of its prohibition on firearms, should implement a mandatory buyback program. That was a recommendation in the report that was supported by committee members.

In addition, I also think that because the report also illustrated the context in which we operate, this problem is not going to be solved by legislation, funding or a shift in policies alone. It is a multi-faceted issue that is going to require reflection, a comprehensive set of solutions, including data collection and research, prevention and intervention, coordination and collaboration between all levels of government, law enforcement and civil society actors.

We know the statistics have not been favourable. That has been mentioned by a few of my colleagues. We know that the rates of firearms-related violent crimes started an upward climb in 2014, with the largest documented increase between 2014 and 2015. Between 2019 and 2020 there were notable increases, including in southern rural British Columbia, the northern part of Ontario, rural Alberta, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia. This is the important part: Handguns were the most serious weapon present in most firearm-related violent crimes between 2009 and 2014, and also between 2015 and 2020.

I now want to focus on the smuggling, which we know is a major problem. It is a consequence of our sharing a border with the United States. The problem, and this goes to the data collection, is that we do not have an accurate figure. It might even be impossible to ever get an accurate figure, because for every successful interdiction, there are so many that will get through. It is simply impossible to extrapolate what the full problem is in that regard.

In this conversation about firearms and the root causes of gun and gang violence, we have to know that there are so many different factors at play here. This is far from a black and white issue. During our committee study, we learned from great testimony from witnesses that things like poverty, inequality, racism, mental illness, social isolation, substance abuse, extremist ideologies, education and health, are all factors which in some way contribute to the phenomenon of gun violence and how bad it can be in some communities.

There is also a very strong correlation between the drug trade in Canada and firearms violence. I think this is important. This House has recently been seized with the issue of Canada's drug laws. We have seen reference to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in another government bill, Bill C-5, which sets out a declaration of principles.

The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke was able to successfully amend that to make sure that criminal records for simple possession will be sequestered after two years. That is an important amendment. The member for Courtenay—Alberni, my friend and neighbour to the north, has his very important private member's bill, Bill C-216.

Almost every single police agency that was before our committee spoke of the interwoven nature of the drug trade and the gun trade. The simple fact is that there are obscene amounts of money that can be made in the drug trade. The introduction of fentanyl and carfentanil has completely changed the profitability game. Every single witness who was talking on this subject said that gang members involved in the drug trade feel the need to have guns on their person to protect their turf and their trade because of the competitive nature of it.

One of the most successful ways we can tackle gun problems in Canada is to enact bold, progressive policies to deal with the demand side, to deal with people's addictions and to make sure we are not harming the people who are out there being nabbed by police for simple possession. Instead, we should be trying to make sure that we are relieving them of the criminal stigma of substance use. We should be drying up that demand so that gangs are not competing for that turf. That is a big scourge for many of our big cities in Canada, and until we see bold policy to deal with this, I fear that years from now we are still going to be having the same conversation about gun violence in Canada.

Let us now turn to some of the main features of Bill C-21. By far, the one that has garnered the most attention is the handgun freeze. It is essentially going to prevent the chief firearms officer from approving the transfer of handguns to individuals. It will effectively ban the buying, selling, transferring and importing of handguns to anyone other than certain businesses and exempted individuals.

To be clear, my technical reading of the bill is that if Bill C-21 were to receive royal assent tomorrow, anyone who is a current RPAL holder and owns a handgun will still be able to lawfully use that handgun just as they did today and yesterday. That will have no change.

It will impact people who are seeking to buy new handguns, but again, exemptions are carved out, for example, if someone can demonstrate that they need a handgun for their line of work. I know foresters who will not travel out into the bush in grizzly country unless they are carrying a handgun. That will be considered an exempted individual.

If someone is a professional target shooter and belongs to an Olympic-qualified organization, we might look at amending that and broadening the scope. The person would still be allowed to use a handgun, and so on.

I acknowledge that smuggling is a huge problem, but we have also had witnesses talk about the problem of the domestic diversion of legal weapons and people using their licences for straw purchases. I think, if we were to completely ignore that side of the equation, we would be doing a disservice to Canadians and to the whole question of public safety on this issue.

The other big aspect of Bill C-21 is the red flag and yellow flag regime, which would basically allow anyone to bypass the police and go directly to a provincial court judge to request the immediate removal of weapons from an individual who they believe is going to pose a danger to themselves or to others. I will note that, in the way Bill C-21 is written, there is an improvement to this aspect of the previous bill, because it would allow a judge to protect the privacy of an individual applying for that emergency prohibition. The judge could also have the option of holding hearings in private and sealing court documents. That is an important improvement to the previous version of the bill.

However, we know organizations such as PolySeSouvient still have problems with how this section is written. I believe that at committee we are going to have to take a deeper dive into whether this can be improved upon.

We also know that members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians were not fans of the previous red flag law. They said:

...placing the onus on a family member of a depressed person, a demented parent, or the perpetrator of domestic violence to go through the court system is a largely unworkable and unwelcome hindrance to getting guns temporarily out of the home of those in crisis.

Others said that the current version of Bill C-21 was “a big, evidence-based step towards reducing gun injury and death in Canada,” so kudos to the government for getting that from physicians who deal with gunshot wounds on a regular basis. They still want to see the particular details of the new red flag law and how it is actually going to work. Of course, the yellow flag law would allow the chief firearms officer to temporarily suspend and review an individual firearms licence while that eligibility is determined.

I want to end on airsoft. In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, there is a massive airsoft community and people love this sport. I had previously only participated in paintball, so I know the fun and the thrill of it, and people who engage in airsoft as a sport love what they do. It is a great outdoor recreational activity, and these people are concerned by the provisions in this bill that are targeting replica models.

We have to find a way to have members of the airsoft community come before our committee. I think we have to have a conversation with the government on how we can find a workable solution so that people are not unfairly targeted for participating in a sport they enjoy. I think there is a middle ground in there somewhere. I acknowledge the concern that law enforcement has with replica airsoft rifles. At a distance, it is not easy to tell whether it is a replica or the real thing, and we certainly did hear at committee that some people had been successful at converting airsoft guns into fully functioning firearms, so that is a very real concern out there.

I know I am in my final minute, so I will just conclude with this: The firearms debate is never a black and white issue, and I know there are a variety of opinions on this topic, but I am going to try to thread the needle. At this point in the debate, I am going to signal my support for getting this bill to committee, because I do not want to just throw it out at this stage. I believe it deserves a closer look, and I believe all members, including my Conservative colleagues, deserve to have the opportunity to focus on the particular sections of the bill, bring forward their witnesses and have an adult conversation about the direction we want to take our country in and what we ultimately want to see out of this.

With that, I will conclude. I appreciate this opportunity, and I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague whether this really simply comes down to a question of values. I have shot an AR-15. I have shot handguns at the range, but I do not need to have one at home.

As a privilege in Canada, would he agree that, really, it is a privilege that should no longer exist, and that some firearms just simply do not belong in civilian hands?

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

Madam Speaker, he mentioned the model AR-15. It is a firearm that has become synonymous with some of the most brutal mass shootings imaginable in the United States. We have to be careful. Canada and the United States are two very different countries when it comes to our firearms laws, but I would agree that certain models of firearms have no place in our society.

I am not talking about non-restricted firearms, or the people who are out there hunting and shooting with their bolt-action rifles or shotguns. I am talking about those ones that can cause death as quickly as one can pull a trigger.

With Bill C-21, though, the debate is not on the way a firearm looks but its functionality. We have had this debate at the public safety committee. It is something that is still unresolved because there are models of firearms out there, semi-automatic rifles, that have the same capacity and same function as firearms that were banned by the OIC, but they are still legal.

We need to have a conversation about where we are drawing the line and how we are actually going to define what a prohibited firearm is. That is a conversation that we still owe to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to acknowledge the member's speech. He spent a lot of time talking about the root causes and the need to address those. To me, the key thing is to sort out the poverty, the drugs, the gangs and the crime in the country if we really want to get down to reducing gun crime.

I would like the member to clarify something. He mentioned that he thought it would be statistically impossible to get to some of the data. I want to remind the member that every legal handgun in Canada is registered. Whether they are straw purchased or not, they are registered, so it is not difficult to figure out how many legal handguns are involved in gun crimes in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I can assure my colleague that I have seen them. I was reading them in preparation for the speech. The issue, though, is when it comes to legal firearms, handguns or long guns that have been stolen. The discrepancy is with the ones that were reported missing and ones that were reported stolen versus the ones that were recovered. Yes, handguns especially have been registered and they are in the system, but there is a discrepancy between the ones that were reported stolen and the ones that were actually recovered. We know that some of those legal firearms are still out on the street. They could potentially be used to commit crimes and they may never be recovered. I think that is the discrepancy I was referring to.

He is absolutely right. We do not know what we do not know. If we are going to have an adult conversation about this, the Government of Canada needs to give Statistics Canada the proper resources so that we can paint a picture, not only for the citizens of Canada, but for the law enforcement that does that important job for us every single day.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about AR-15s and the mandatory buyback program for assault weapons. I did not have time to talk about this in my speech earlier, but I would like him to comment on how the government has decided to proceed.

The government started by banning 1,500 guns effective May 1, 2020. Today, the list of banned guns has grown to nearly 1,800, including the AR-15, which is quite popular and was used in certain unfortunately notorious shootings. However, guns that function much like the AR-15 are still being sold. For example, the WK-180 uses the same ammunition and is still on the market.

The gun lobby, gun shops and gun sellers are finding ways to get around these regulations. Even if we continue to add gun models to the blacklist, others will come on the market. We proposed including a definition of a prohibited assault weapon directly in the Criminal Code. That way, they could all be put in the same basket and would be banned all at once instead of one by one. What does my colleague think about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I remember in May 2020, when that Order in Council was issued, I got a lot of feedback from my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Overwhelmingly, their frustration was with the suddenness of it: the fact that Parliament never had the opportunity for its elected representatives to debate it. Their preference, overwhelmingly, would have been to have Parliament debate that issue.

I acknowledge my colleague's concern on the lack of a proper definition. I think that both she and I will have questions for the government members on the committee about what they intend to do and whether that loophole is something that needs to be fixed in Bill C-21, and I will be looking forward to the Liberals' response in that regard.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for the information that he brought to the debate and also for the tone, which I think is quite constructive. The member recognized that there are many lawful gun owners in Canada who have a culture of responsible use, but that we nevertheless have a serious problem with gun crime in Canada. Part of that has to do with the diversion of legitimate weapons out of the homes of responsible owners and into the hands of those who would use them to harm Canadians.

We have heard some discussion in the House tonight from Conservatives, which I welcome, talking about the root causes of crime. I also remember that their government, first of all, made the classification system for prohibited weapons and took it out of the hands of Parliament so that cabinet could do it directly, which is something they later complained about. I remember that the Conservatives cut hundreds of jobs from the CBSA and over $140 million in funding. I know that they defunded a number of programs that addressed questions of poverty. In fact, when we talk about things like a guaranteed annual income and various other kinds of supports that would help people living in—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

This is questions and comments, and the hon. member has already been going for one minute. I have other people who want to ask questions, and so I will go to the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for an answer.

I would ask members to maybe look at me so that I can give them the signal of when to wrap up.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention, and I will focus on his remarks about the CBSA.

It is true that the CBSA is still recovering from those cuts, but I think we also need to have a conversation about its role and responsibility. Currently, the CBSA is limited to operating at Canada's ports of entry, and if CBSA officers see illegal activity that is happening outside of a port of entry, they have to call the RCMP in. This can sometimes result in some snafus between the two agencies working together, so we may need to have a conversation about expanding the mandate of the CBSA and also providing the funding so that CBSA officers can do their jobs and keep those illegal firearms from coming into Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for an excellent speech, and particularly for reflecting on the complexity, such that we do not know what we do not know.

In looking at the statistics, it is counterintuitive that more violent deaths occur in rural areas in Canada. This is probably legal gun owners and a lot of violence within families. One would think that urban guns were where we were getting more violent crime, but it is actually less than in rural areas. Urban areas are associated with more actual criminal activities, but fewer deaths. It is complicated.

I want to come back to the member's closing comments to the member for Elmwood—Transcona. The Canada Border Services Agency is not just short of funds, but it is also short of credibility. It has a very high rate of reports of racist incidents, and it also has no oversight body. Does the member have any comment on the need for an oversight body for CBSA?

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

Madam Speaker, I was very happy to see the government also introduce Bill C-20, which is the result of some very considerate recommendations from a report in the previous Parliament on systemic racism in policing in Canada. That bill would set up a public complaints and review commission: It is a stand-alone piece of legislation, a stand-alone agency, that would have the authority to investigate both the CBSA and the RCMP. It would require statutory timelines for responses to its investigations, and it would have the funds necessary to hold both of those law enforcement agencies to account.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

It is a true honour to be able to take part in this debate tonight on Bill C-21. This historic legislation builds on the government's previous work to end gun violence and keep Canadian communities safe.

My friends across the aisle often speak about the need to address gun smuggling and trafficking that contribute to gun violence. This bill would do that by strengthening border control measures, increasing penalties for trafficking offences and providing law enforcement with better tools to investigate gun crimes. This bill would also implement a national freeze on handguns, and it addresses many concerns that survivors of gun violence, experts, advocates and chiefs of police have raised.

Tonight, though, I want to focus my comments on the survivors of intimate partner violence, who have been asking for laws like this for decades. Before becoming elected to represent Thunder Bay—Superior North, I ran a large homeless shelter where I heard countless stories from women who were fleeing the violence they faced from their intimate partners. I also worked with many young people who were trying to escape violent homes and violent realities.

Then, as minister of status of women, my first cabinet position, which I was so honoured to hold upon my election in 2015, I was told by many women and 2SLGBTQ+ people terrifying and emotional stories about how their partners used violence as a way to control and intimidate them. These stories are ones that I carry with me and that propel me to do more. I bring with me their determination and their requests for change.

Intimate partner violence does not only refer to physical harm. Abusers use control to dominate their partners and often a legally acquired registered and licensed firearm is the underlying threat that accompanies those control efforts. Victims of gun violence, women's groups and advocates who work so hard to protect the lives and safety of women and two-spirited people have spoken out for years, asking for stronger controls on access to deadly weapons that can be used to control women, sometimes with fatal finality.

Following the massacre of 14 female students at École Polytechnique, PolySeSouvient has advocated for stronger gun control so that families and communities would never again have to experience such excruciating loss. I have met with some of these families. I am in awe of their determination to change our laws and to better protect women. Their commitment means that they relive the loss of their loved daughter, sister or friend over and over in their work. In 1989, I was 23 years old, and I remember vividly the Polytechnique shooting and imagining being targeted solely because of my gender.

I will never forget, yet it was not until two years ago, under our Liberal government, that 1,500 assault-style weapons such as AR-15s were banned, which is something that women advocates had been urging for 31 years. Since then, over 300 more types of assault rifles have been prevented from entering the market, and the Conservatives have fought us on this action. Despite their tough-on-crime stance, they staunchly stood with gun lobbyists instead of survivors and families, but we knew that we could do more.

Women's advocates have worked for years to implore for changes that would legally allow for the removal of weapons after warning signs of violence, including for charges that are recorded in police databases. For too long, their voices were ignored. Despite the many, many calls for action and the many reports and the many studies, survivors of intimate partner violence were left unheard and women in abusive relationships were not protected.

Studies have shown that having a firearm in a home, even legally obtained, increases the likelihood of suicide and that victims of intimate partner violence are five times as likely to be killed if a firearm is present in the home. That is why these measures, such as a freeze on handguns and red flag laws, are so important.

Bill C-21 proposes the creation of red flag and yellow flag provisions. These provisions would make it easier for anyone who is threatened by the presence of a firearm in their home or by an individual who owns a firearm, to protect themselves and others.

The red flag regime would allow anyone, not just police, to apply to the courts for an immediate removal of an individual's firearm if they pose a danger. The yellow flag regime would allow anyone to ask a chief firearms officer to suspend and examine an individual's licence if there are reasonable suspicions that the person is no longer eligible to hold a licence.

There are also other situations where a person may be suicidal or who has openly advocated hatred or violence against someone, and these laws will save lives. In Canada, gun ownership is a privilege. It is not a right. Canadians earn the privilege of owning a firearm when they adhere to strict laws, regulations and requirements regarding licensing, training, storage and use of a firearm.

This is a principle that differentiates Canada from many other countries in the world and leads to less gun violence than other countries, including the United States. My heart is with so many families that have lost children, loved ones and partners through the rampant gun violence that is ripping apart communities across the country to the south of us.

However, we must not be complacent here in our country. We must listen to the voices of families and survivors. We must do better to protect each other and our communities from coercive control using firearms and the violence that could ensue.

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

Canadian women have asked for action, and the Minister of Public Safety has stepped forward as an ally. We must all put our best efforts forward to pass this legislation and save lives.

As the Prime Minister said, we need more than thoughts and prayers. We need concrete action. That is exactly what Bill C-21 does, it provides concrete action to protect women and others from devastating violence.

I am very proud to support this bill at second reading, and I do hope that my colleagues will also support the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it has come up in several debates this evening that there would be exemptions for the sport shooting community.

We have heard the term “expert sport shooters”. One becomes an expert by practising. Will the exemptions be carved out for those who are attempting to represent Canada on the international stage in that community, or is this bill a means to an end?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

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

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

This is smart legislation. It is compassionate legislation. It is designed precisely to keep people, women, families and communities safe.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about victims and victim organizations raising their voices over the years and offering input that has been expressed in Bill C-21.

Could the member elaborate on that point, particularly for urban communities? We have seen that impact not only there but also in rural communities. I would like to hear her perspective on that.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a person who worked closely with communities that have been traumatized by violence, I have met survivors of gun violence, victims of intimate partner violence and certainly groups of allies and advocates across the country in my political role.

The message continues to be the same, which is that Canada has to do more to protect women and vulnerable people, such as those in 2SLGBTQ communities, and that we need to do more quickly. As I mentioned in my speech, sometimes the violence is overt, as in guns are used in extremely devastating ways that end lives, but sometimes guns have been used in ways to control victims through coercive control. I know that is something that has come up in the House and at committees. I am looking forward to the ongoing work to address intimate partner violence, which exists in such endemic ways across our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to build off the question from my Conservative colleague and ask the minister to explain how businesses are supposed to take over this role of owning handguns for new enthusiasts. In my riding, I belong to the Owen Sound Revolver Club. It is out in the boonies. It does not have any ability to store a large number of handguns. It would have to leave a building unsecured or spend millions. I just do not know how the sport shooting community is going to adapt to that, especially in rural Canada, like where the minister lives.

I would like the minister to expand in greater detail as to how these active sport shooting communities with handguns are going to actually implement what she is suggesting would happen with Bill C-21.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say this about our government. One thing that I am very confident in is that we will be able to work with sport shooting communities and business owners to ensure that we understand those challenges, that we can help support those communities and, indeed, support businesses to comply with the law and ensure they continue to support sport shooting across this country.

Again, this legislation is not targeted at lawful gun owners. This is about restricting access to guns that have only one purpose, which is to harm or control people.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a true honour for me to speak this evening on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport. It is a riding I am very honoured to represent.

The objective of Bill C-21, which is what we are debating this evening, is to amend the Criminal Code and Firearms Act in order to do four key things: establish a national freeze on handguns; establish red-flag and yellow-flag laws and expand gun licence revocation; combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, notably by increasing the maximum penalty of imprisonment for indictable weapons offences; and prohibit mid-velocity replica air guns.

In short, it is clear action from our federal government to address gun violence, which has been on the rise in Canada and presents a serious and significant threat to the well-being of Canadian communities. Since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81%, and 47% of Canadians have reported feeling that gun violence poses a serious threat to their communities.

I am a born and bred downtown Torontonian, and while most of my life Canada's largest city has been relatively safe, gun violence has been noticed and, as I mentioned, is on the rise. It is something we worry about because we hear about it in our communities and it makes us feel unsafe.

I was on a call with my staff this morning, who monitor all the social media and media in my riding. Yesterday, there was gun violence on the corner of Gladstone and Bloor in my riding. I do not know all of the details, but this is what I was able to garner from the news media:

One man was transported to hospital with serious injuries after being shot Friday evening.

It happened in the Bloor Street and Gladstone Avenue area just after 7:30 p.m.

The circumstances surrounding the shooting were not immediately known. Preliminary reports indicated that two shots had been fired, police said.

The victim...sustained serious, but non-life-threatening injuries....

Every incident like this makes our community members feel unsafe. It impacts our quality of life and it impacts our well-being.

I have been listening to the debate this evening, and I agree that tackling gun violence is not a simple issue. It is super complex. There is no one measure that will get guns off our streets, and this bill is definitely not a panacea.

It is also not our first action. I am very proud of all the actions we have taken over the last six to seven years to tackle gun violence.

I am really proud of Bill C-71, introduced during the 42nd Parliament. It was for registering firearms, providing additional due diligence practices, providing better supports for enforcement officers in tracing efforts and providing a number of additional measures that would keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. We also put a significant amount of money into our border officers in order to stop guns from crossing our borders, and heavily invested in tackling the root causes of violence.

There are other measures we have taken. Last May, we took the step of prohibiting more than 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and their variants. While the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible, these kinds of powerful and dangerous firearms are not designed for legitimate activities such as hunting and sport shooting. They were made for the battlefield and have no place in our cities at all. Taking that step put us in lockstep with other global leaders in gun control policy.

However, gun violence of all kinds continues to be a major problem in our communities and cities, as I mentioned. All firearm tragedies, from the public ones we commemorate to the private ones that occur in the home, create untold sadness and are often preventable. We acknowledge all those who have felt the tragic loss of a loved one and the loss of a sense of safety and security in their own community.

Gun violence remains a tragic reality that impacts our cities and regions. We only need to look at the Polytechnique tragedy, or what happened at the Quebec City mosque in recent memory, when a killer entered and murdered six people and injured many others. We also remember the massacre that happened in Nova Scotia.

No one should have their life cut short in this way. No one should have to live with the pain of losing a loved one to firearms violence. It is why we have made gun control a top priority, including by regulation and by legislation. It is why we stand with those who advocate relentlessly to increase safety in their communities. Their voices have deepened our resolve, and have helped to form our response in the form of this new legislation.

As I noted, since 2015 we have made some real and concrete progress to keep Canadians safe. We have introduced common-sense gun laws. We have invested in our law enforcement. As the Minister of Public Safety has said, we have also invested in kids and communities, because we know that makes a difference and addresses the determinants of crime and violence. However, there is always more we can do, and we must continue to address the root causes of gun violence to address the conditions in communities that lead to violence, and target the ways that guns get into the hands of people seeking to do harm.

For example, criminals can gain access to firearms in a number of ways. Some are smuggled across the border from the United States. Some are stolen from legal gun owners. Some are purchased legally by individuals who have the licence to make the purchase, but are then sold illegally through straw purchasing. Bill C-21 addresses all of these issues.

We also know that there are circumstances when a gun may be owned legally, but the circumstances of its ownership may change. It may be in a home where there are now incidents of gender-based violence and domestic violence. There may be a situation where a person suffering from suicidal ideation has access to a firearm, or it may be accessible to someone who has been radicalized to violent extremism. In those circumstances, we have to have the tools to enable firearms to be removed from a situation that is dangerous and made deadly by the presence of a firearm. That is another important element of Bill C-21. It is empowering Canadians to take action.

Situations involving domestic and intimate partner violence have been compounded by the pandemic. Beyond domestic violence, there are also other situations where a person may be suicidal or has openly advocated hatred or violence against someone.

In response, Bill C-21 proposes the creation of red-flag and yellow-flag provisions. These provisions would make it easier for anyone who feels threatened by the presence of a firearm in their home, or by an individual who owns a firearm, to take action to protect themselves and others. More specifically, the red-flag regime would allow anyone, not just police, to apply to the courts for the immediate removal of an individual firearm if it poses a danger. Similarly, the yellow-flag regime would allow anyone to ask a chief firearms officer to suspend and examine an individual's licence if there are reasonable suspicions that the person is no longer eligible to hold a licence.

As colleagues know, gun ownership in Canada is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege earned by Canadians who adhere to our strict laws, our regulations and our requirements regarding licensing, training, storage and use of a firearm. In Canada, guns are only intended to be used for hunting and sport purposes.

Let me also acknowledge, as the Prime Minister has done, that the overwhelming majority of firearm owners in this country are law-abiding. They are responsible firearm owners. They acquire their firearms legally. They store them securely. They use them responsibly. They earn the privilege of firearm ownership, and we respect them for their adherence to these laws.

I know a lot of those individuals, not only in my own community but in the firearm-owning community in this country, and I can say that they are concerned with the safe use of firearms and restricting the access that criminals and people intent on violent crime can have to firearms. I believe they will understand the importance of the work we are introducing today to keep our communities safe.

All Canadians deserve to live in a place where they can be safe and secure. That is the objective of Bill C-21. As the Prime Minister has said, “we need more than thoughts and prayers. We need concrete action.” That is exactly what Bill C-21 proposes: concrete action to stem the tide of gun violence in Canada.

I am very proud to support the bill at second reading and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech by the member for Davenport, and I have some sympathy for the challenges people in large cities like Toronto and in your riding face, as I lived for about 10 years in Leaside, not far from your riding, even though I am on the south shore.

In your speech, I think there were a couple of things that perhaps—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the member to address his comments through the Chair and not directly to the member.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned a number of tragic incidents throughout Canada, the most recent of which was in Nova Scotia in Portapique. Those crimes were committed with illegal firearms smuggled across the U.S. border, not with legal handguns.

I am wondering, given this initiative, what percentage of crime in large cities with handguns will be reduced by this bill.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that, while the hon. member used to live in Leaside, I lived on the other side of the railway track, so we lived in a more working class neighbourhood where a lot more violence and, I think, a lot more crime took place. A key intent of Bill C-21 is to absolutely cap the market for hot handguns. Individuals will no longer be able to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns.

I also have another message here, which is that there will never be more handguns in Canada than there are when this bill passes. Our goal is to absolutely eliminate handguns from our cities. There is no need for us to be able to have handguns in our cities. The fewer guns there are, the less gun violence there will be and the safer our streets will be.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague briefly touched on why this bill is important for cases relating to intimate partner violence. As the status of women critic, I am participating in the committee's study of a report on what goes on in certain intimate partner violence situations. The goal is to figure out how to reduce intimate partner violence.

One aspect of the bill I want to focus on is the immediate revocation of a licence for anyone under a protection order or involved in an act of intimate partner violence or harassment. That is obviously essential, but we cannot just tackle physical violence.

How can we expand the scope to emotional violence in order to include what is known as coercive control, a much broader concept of intimate partner violence? That is what I am getting from this measure. Is that what the member is getting as well?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, every time we take some additional steps, we better protect those who experience both gender-based violence and intimate partner violence. We need to never stop until we are absolutely sure that those who experience this type of violence and this type of threat are secure.

I will say that this is a key part of the reason why we are establishing the red flag and yellow flag laws. We are actually allowing a number of ways to go to the courts to be able to keep those who are experiencing gender-based violence and intimate partner violence safe.

This is just one of the many ways we are doing it. We will not stop until all women and those who experience this type of violence safe.

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

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the red flag laws in her last response. I know there have been many stakeholders who have serious concerns about this because it still puts the onus on people who are victimized and who may not feel safe to come forward.

I am wondering if the government would consider doing more work around this and listen to the stakeholders.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are at second reading right now. If colleagues agree and pass this bill, it will go to committee. I think that is the right place for us to be hearing from some of those experts. If there are parts of this bill that can actually be strengthened, we would welcome that opportunity.

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

Madam Speaker, it is honour for me to be here this evening to join the debate on Bill C-21, a bill recently introduced by the government in an attempt to keep our citizens safe.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

In his opening comments, the Minister for Public Safety stated his wish that we would find common cause on this very important topic, and I was happy to hear the member for Davenport, the previous speaker, say the same. We are all in agreement that our streets need to be safer and our citizens need to be safe, and it is our job as parliamentarians to find ways for that to become a reality, because gun crime is a problem in Canada, despite fairly strict gun control laws over many decades.

Unfortunately, gun crime is up quite substantially since about 2014, and then there was another uptick with the start of the pandemic. Illicit drug crime and smuggling are also up. Toxic drug overdose deaths are also up. These are all real threats. Fortunately, the public safety committee has conducted a study into guns, gangs and illicit drug smuggling. I think that there is some very interesting information coming out of the study that is going to be useful for us as we develop laws and policies.

Illicit drugs are a real problem in Canada. Certainly they are a real problem in my hometown of Langley and in metro Vancouver. I grieve with a family friend, who is grieving the passing away of their adult son about a year ago in a toxic drug overdose death. They did not know he was addicted. They do not know where he got the drugs. He was a responsible citizen. He had a good job. He had a family. He had people who loved him. These seem to be the types of people who are caught up in this.

Guns are a real problem too. Just about a year ago, there were a series of gangland-style shootings in metro Vancouver, including in my riding of Langley, as I mentioned in an earlier speech. There was a shooting in broad daylight in which somebody was murdered right in front of the Sportsplex where my grandsons play hockey. It all hits very close to home.

In response to that shooting incident, and there were a series of them in metro Vancouver about a year ago, I asked a question in question period of the former minister of public safety, which he then was. This was in the previous Parliament. I asked him what the government was doing about keeping our streets safe from gun crime. His response was that he was looking into the source of guns used in crimes.

The previous speaker mentioned exactly the same formula: Guns used in crimes are either stolen from lawful gun owners or are straw purchased, which means they are bought legally by a person who has a licence to purchase a gun, but it was bought for somebody else, probably for gang-related activities. Number three is that they are smuggled in from the United States of America.

I did not have a follow-up question with the minister at the time, but there is only so much information that can be exchanged in the 60-second question-and-answer period.

I thought I would do the research myself. I thought that would be a relatively easy answer to find. I wanted to know how many guns used in crime were stolen from lawful gun owners, how many were straw purchased, by percentage, and how many were smuggled into the country illegally?

I went to Statistics Canada and I found out that the answer does not exist. The data is missing. I went to the Library of Parliament and asked those folks if they could conduct some research for me. They did their best, but they came back and said that they do not really know, because there are a lot of a gaps in the data.

I went to my local police force, and the police confirmed exactly that. They said that police services across the country are not required to trace guns used in crime, and that is if they can actually find the gun that was used in the crime.

There is another thing that I discovered: There is no standard definition for what a crime gun is. Is it the gun that was actually used in a crime in which somebody pulled the trigger, intending to harm somebody, or is the definition much broader than that? Does it even include guns in the possession of people who accidentally or inadvertently allowed their gun licence to lapse?

At the public safety committee, we studied this and the answers were all over the place. One person said that 80% of guns used in crimes were smuggled in from the United States. Someone else, also a very credible witness, said that 80% were sourced from home. When we dug into it deeper, we realized they were working from completely different definitions.

Statistics Canada came to our committee and we put the question to them. This is what they said, “At this point in time, we do not have national data” and “I cannot provide you with specific information”. Statistics Canada is acknowledging that there is a big gap.

It is such an important question, because if as parliamentarians we are going to develop laws that are designed to be effective in keeping people safe and accomplishing what we set out to do, we need to have good data. I asked myself if we have passed any other laws where we did not have the data. We have passed laws to try to manage inflation, housing affordability and the cost-of-living crisis, but we have a lot of data. Statistics Canada keeps data on those things. When managing a pandemic, of course we have data on that. We want to know how the virus spreads from one person to another. We base all of that on data.

Here we have Bill C-21 purporting to stop gun violence and we do not have the data. We do not know where the guns are coming from. I am very puzzled by that. This to me is the biggest problem. The government is presenting this legislation to people as being a means of keeping us safer and we know that is not the case.

In our study, we discovered that probably 80% of guns used in crimes have actually been smuggled in from the United States. We had a number of witnesses explain to us, to state the obvious, that Canada has the longest undefended border between two countries anywhere in the world. The United States is the largest manufacturer of guns. There are more guns in the United States of America than there are citizens. We know this is the primary source of guns that are used in crimes. They are smuggled across the river. They are smuggled across the Great Lakes. They are smuggled across border crossings in my riding at the Aldergrove and the Peace Arch border crossings.

This is what we need to do. We need to get better data. We need to work with the United States of America. This is not a problem we can solve by ourselves. We need to work with Homeland Security, get it to co-operate with us to try to stop the flow of illegal guns getting into the hands of criminals and gangsters. Very importantly, we need to tackle the root causes of crimes. We need to understand why young people are getting involved in gangs. We need to divert them away from that. We need to understand how toxic drugs are getting onto our streets. We need to be able to stop that. We need to be able to encourage people to get the mental health and addiction help they need.

Guns and drugs are so tied together that we cannot solve one problem without solving the other.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not believe there is a quorum in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again, if the hon. member was not in the House a little while ago, I already ruled on that. There are no quorum calls during this debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the border. I know that this is an important aspect of this debate. I was formerly the assistant to an MP whose riding was on the U.S. border, and I know that people can get very creative when they want to bring all kinds of things across the border.

This evening's debate reminds us that guns are obviously getting across the border. I am not referring to legal guns but to smuggled guns that are illegally imported by train or boat.

It was rather surreal today to see the Quebec public safety minister make an announcement about Akwesasne without a federal representative being present, given that the federal government should be contributing to and helping with this important fight.

I would like to remind members about my Bloc Québécois colleagues' idea of creating a joint task force whose members would all work together to crack down on illegal guns. What does my colleague think of that?

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

Madam Speaker, having guns come into Canada is a very complicated social problem and there is no easy solution. I do not believe that the CBSA can stop all guns coming in. As the member pointed out, they are being smuggled across the border by rail. Trains are not being inspected for guns. They are being smuggled in by boat across rivers and lakes. They are being smuggled in across unofficial, non-border crossings. We are not going to be able to stop it on our own. It is very important that we work together with American counterparts and Homeland Security and have them come to our assistance. This needs to be a team approach.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the research that the member has done on the issue is admirable, as well as the work at the public safety committee.

What I am curious about is this. The member explained what measures will not work, but I would like to hear what measures will work. Often, when we have put measures in place, such as stronger background checks, the Conservative Party has opposed them. When we invested $350 million in law enforcement to prosecute gangs and stop trafficking, the Conservatives opposed it. Would there be any kind of gun control measure that the Conservatives will not oppose?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not a hunter or a gun person myself, but I have a lot of constituents who are and I speak with many of them. They are all law-abiding citizens and they are okay with gun control laws that make sense. They are okay with background checks. The RCMP does criminal checks. All of that is completely acceptable. That is all good policy, so laws around that I would completely support.

Also, we need to fully resource police services and community groups across the country that are focused on keeping kids out of gangs, as well as health supports for people with addictions.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about some of the other challenges that Canadians and Canada are facing. I was just looking at one statistic. It says that there were 26,690 apparent opioid toxicity deaths in Canada between January 2016 and September 2021. There were 26,690 opioid overdose deaths in Canada from illegal drugs, yet the government is focused on spending billions possibly on buybacks, and so on.

Why can the government not put more effort into combatting illegal firearms and drugs coming into Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I am assuming that is a rhetorical question, as I cannot answer why the government is not doing something, but I would completely support the underlying premise. We have discovered that illegal drugs and illegal guns are tied together. We cannot solve one problem without solving the other, and I am mystified as to why the government has not yet introduced a study into the source of fentanyl and carfentanil that are killing people. It is completely unacceptable that 26,000 people have died. This is an advanced society and we need to find an answer.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand here this evening to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Certain elements of this bill are good and Conservatives, as always, will support common-sense gun laws that target criminals and gangs. We are the party that is focused on protecting victims of crime.

Earlier today, this side of the House presented a motion that would have sent certain elements of the bill to committee immediately, elements of the bill that focused on protecting potential victims of gun crime, elements of the bill that would tighten up gun laws that address gun smuggling.

One amendment to this bill included a red flag provision that would allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a dangerous domestic situation more quickly. I am in support of that. It is a common-sense amendment that this side of the House is in support of and was ready to send it directly to committee so it could be passed more quickly.

Domestic violence is something that we should not take lightly. This side of the House feels that if we can get this to committee, we are much closer to getting this passed and much closer to saving innocent lives. However, that side of the House blocked this from happening. I am not sure why that side wants to politicize the lives of innocent men, women and children who are caught in domestic violence situations. Why?

Our motion also supported more severe penalties for criminals smuggling guns. Watching deliberations regarding the massacre in Nova Scotia, we heard some testimony that the man responsible for the shootings had guns brought over the border. We also heard that it was well known that the man had a vast selection of weapons.

Had there been tougher penalties for those illegal weapons, would there have been a different outcome? We will never know. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the government would block such important measures. Why would it not want to take every opportunity possible to stop any occurrence of violent crime as quickly as possible?

Conservatives support the elements of Bill C-21 that are focused on protecting victims of gun crime and tightening up laws that address gun smuggling.

We know that gun crimes are not committed with legal guns or by law-abiding gun owners for the most part and represent a much lower proportion of violent crimes than those committed with knives or other weapons. We also know that the government has the means and ways to stop illegal guns from entering this country.

The question is why it is not stopping the illegal trade of firearms. If the government were as hell-bent on stopping illegal guns from getting into the hands of criminals as it is on keeping the useless travel restrictions in place, the streets of our cities would be much safer.

It is shameful that the Liberal government chooses politics over protecting victims and rejected our motion to immediately send those elements of the bill to the committee today.

Today's actions from that side of the House send a strong message that the Liberals are not serious about stopping dangerous criminals from getting their hands on illegal guns. Their actions tell me that they are not serious about making our streets safer. That is a shame, because the lives of so many are counting on the members of this House collectively to do the right thing.

The members opposite are simply not willing to back down on their political agenda and separate the ineffective and divisive parts of their bill that do nothing to stop gun violence and provide no benefit to vulnerable Canadians. I am confused.

When it comes to Liberal priorities, of course, they talk a good talk about gun crime, but the fact is the Liberals are going soft on real gun criminals and weakening the laws where it counts. For example, Liberals want a ban on pellet guns. I do not understand the mindset of the government. Do Liberals really believe a young person who owns a pellet gun is a criminal?

However, under Bill C-5, a gang member who is convicted of a violent crime would be allowed to serve his or her sentence in the very community that he or she terrorized. There is no mandatory jail time for those criminals. Let us stop and think about that for a minute. A violent offender has terrorized a person or a community and, rather than going to jail, that criminal can serve his or her time in the very community where he or she has committed the crime. This Liberal mindset is making our communities less safe and at greater risk for gun crime.

Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, gun crime has gone up steadily each year. For residents in cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg, gun violence is an everyday occurrence. The Liberals have ignored gun safety and put politics first at every step. This has come at an expense to everyday Canadians who are being victimized in their own communities by rising gun violence committed by gangs and dangerous criminals. Lives of innocent human beings are lost every day to legal guns used by criminals.

Canadians are tired of false promises. The Liberal government is more concerned about and focused on headlines and creating divisive legislation than the safety of Canadians. While the Liberal plan continues to fail and gun violence continues to grow, Conservatives will stay focused on common-sense firearms safety, tackling gun crime and making communities safer.

I grew up in a small community. Pellet guns were not considered a dangerous weapon, and I do not think any of the members across the aisle consider pellet guns or an airsoft rifle to be a dangerous weapon.

There are so many things in this bill that I cannot go along with. I have so many law-abiding gun owners in my riding who are feeling threatened by this legislation. Therefore, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “and that the committee report back no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. deputy House leader for the government in the House of Commons.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, there have been a lot of references tonight brought up about illegal guns versus legal guns. Regarding having fewer guns in circulation, countries like the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and those that have taken really strong measures against guns in their countries have seen casualties reduced. Whether it is death by accident, mass shootings or homicides, they have all been reduced in those countries. The proof is looking at what they have implemented.

A lot of what the U.K., Australia and New Zealand have implemented is exactly what we have been doing by this measure and by the one that we took in 2019.

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

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate my hon. colleague's question. I know her heart is in the right place, and she is a good person.

In London, every year now we are looking at between 400 and 600 acid attacks. If criminals cannot access their illegal guns, they find a way. There are knives, and there are cube vans.

Legally purchased firearms by law-abiding citizens are not the problem. The government knows everything we do, including the last time we went to the bathroom, so it should know how illegal guns are coming into the country.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I will continue along the same lines.

A few days after Bill C‑21 was introduced, Le Devoir conducted a little investigation to see if the handgun freeze would actually be effective or a good idea.

The journalists interviewed André Gélinas, a retired detective sergeant with the Montreal police service. Without hesitation, he said that this freeze will in no way solve the problem or reduce crime in this country. In fact, he believes the freeze is aimed at the wrong target, because handguns are smaller and lighter, making them the gun of choice for criminals. They are bought illegally and arrive from the United States, as has been mentioned several times this evening. According to Mr. Gélinas, in order to reduce the number of shootings and incidents involving stray bullets, we need to deal with illegal guns.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy my colleague's speeches in the House, and I find her to be very knowledgeable on the topics that she speaks on.

On Bay du Nord, we are not quite on the same page, but I agree with her 100% that we need to target criminals who access illegal guns, and gangs, etc. The real problem is not law-abiding gun owners, responsible taxpaying, God-fearing Canadian citizens who make this country great.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame mentioned the Portapique shootings, which were devastating. I am from Nova Scotia, and the daughter of a friend of mine was one of the people killed.

The killer had so menaced the community that a number of people had gone to the RCMP. One of his neighbours actually picked up and moved away, because the RCMP was not protecting the neighbours who reported that this man had guns and appeared to be dangerous.

One of the briefs that I have seen so far on Bill C-21 suggests that we should reverse the onus of burden to show that one should be a legal gun owner, and that the onus should be on the person who wants to own the gun as opposed to on neighbours to report on that person.

I know there is a red flag in this legislation, and I will wrap up here, but what are the member's thoughts on what we should do to change the onus?

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

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is in a different time zone than I am. I am on Newfoundland time, which is an hour and a half behind.

The red flag clause in the bill is a great clause, and I agree with the member.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London North Centre.

It is my pleasure to speak on the laudable justice of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments to firearms. The government has taken a multi-faceted approach to address firearms violence in Canada. Our ban on assault-style firearms on May 1, 2020 was a significant step forward in implementing a number of firearm policy commitments that were made in the Speech from the Throne in both 2019 and 2020. Bill C-21 builds on these commitments and other initiatives by addressing a multitude of factors that contribute to gun violence.

I want to start by addressing an issue that has been brought up so many times here today, the issue of illegal versus legal guns. I want to make it clear that the government is not targeting legal gun ownership; it is about creating safer communities for all Canadians.

As many of us have acknowledged here, and we have heard that the public safety committee has studied the issue as well, legal guns can turn into illegal guns. Since 2009, we have seen an increase, by three times, in the number of thefts of guns from legal gun owners. Those stolen guns then end up in the hands of criminals.

Also, statistics show that the more gun ownership we have, the more accidental shootings and deaths there are, accidents that are lethal or non-lethal. The stats show that Saskatchewan has the highest rates in the country of accidental shootings, next to Manitoba and then Alberta, followed by B.C. and then Ontario. I believe Quebec is one of the lower ones compared to the national average. That is something that could be decreased through this legislation.

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, there have been other countries that have addressed their gun violence with similar pieces of legislation, with similar reforms. We have seen, for example, that in Australia the rate of gun-related deaths fell by about 50%, and that number stayed there. That is remarkable. We have seen similar outcomes in the U.K. and New Zealand as well. That is really important to acknowledge.

Today, we have discussed where these guns are sourced from, and I appreciated the hon. opposition member's research into this, but I have also talked to many chiefs of police about the issue and I also used to sit on the public safety committee. There is a common understanding that over half of crime guns traced in 2020 were sourced domestically. They were either obtained legally or through theft and straw purchases, including 50% of handguns that were traced. For example, the shooting on the Danforth was with a legal firearm that was stolen from Saskatchewan and ended up being used in that mass killing, which was such an unfortunate incident.

Reducing the number of domestically sourced handguns that are diverted to the illegal market is part of our government's comprehensive plan to mitigate the deadly threat of firearm violence. This is a very important step.

The next thing I would like to address, which I know is a big concern for many members in the House, is the issue of gun smuggling. Reducing it is a key part of the government's fight to reduce access to illegal firearms. Firearms smuggling and trafficking are very often associated with organized crime activity and jeopardize public safety. Access to illegal guns enables the commission of other crimes, including drug trafficking. We must and will continue to take steps to address this, including by increasing the maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment for gun smuggling and trafficking.

According to a 2018 report from Toronto police's firearms enforcement unit, 70% of Toronto's crime guns for which sourcing could be determined came from across the border, compared with the 50% average between 2014 and 2017. That is why this step is so essential. Toronto police attributed the increase in foreign sourcing in 2018 to two large seizures by the guns and gangs unit. This has had a major impact on communities and provinces, which have called on the federal government to combat trafficking and smuggling.

Signalling the seriousness of these offences to criminals is of paramount importance in deterring these crimes. The proposal to increase the maximum penalty will also send a clear message to the courts that Parliament denounces these crimes.

Next I want to address Bill C-21's proposed red-flag regime in the Criminal Code, which seeks to prevent serious violence from occurring in the first place.

We want to prevent these incidents from happening by creating a new tool to temporarily remove guns from situations where violence may be possible. The new regime would allow any member of the public to apply to a court for an emergency weapons protection order that would prohibit or limit access by an individual to a weapon for a maximum of 30 days. It could go beyond that, if necessary, up to five years. The regime would also allow judges to hold emergency proceedings in camera or to redact or seal part of the record to protect the identity of the applicant or potential victims, another issue that was raised here today. We want to ensure that people feel safe to come forward.

The person making the application must have reasonable grounds to believe that another individual should not have access to a weapon because they pose a safety risk to themselves or to others. If a judge is satisfied that the grounds are met, they can make a temporary weapons prohibition order for up to 30 days. The removal of a firearm from an individual who poses a risk to themselves or others would provide the necessary time for authorities to undertake a full investigation and hearing. Following this, a determination could be made as to whether a longer-term prohibition is warranted.

This bill would also allow a member of the public to apply to a judge on similar grounds to seek a temporary limitation on access order of up to 30 days to prevent a person who is subject to a weapons prohibition from accessing firearms in the possession of another person. The order would be against the third person, who could be an acquaintance or a roommate.

Bill C-21 also proposes to address a gap in the law concerning replica firearms. These changes have been the subject of much attention since the introduction of the bill, so I would like to spend some time describing exactly what the bill proposes on this point.

The current definition of replica firearms, which has been in the Criminal Code since 1998, has two requirements: a device that exactly resembles, or resembles with near precision, a firearm, and that is not a firearm itself. Replica firearms are prohibited devices in Canada. Replica firearms are also considered imitation firearms, and the Criminal Code makes it an offence to use an imitation firearm in the commission of another offence.

Replica firearms are treated the way they are in our Criminal Code because the public and police are not able to distinguish them from conventional firearms, particularly in time-sensitive emergency situations. Sadly, we saw this recently in Scarborough. This is a very important part of what the bill is trying to address.

Many Canadians understand exactly the gap that is being targeted. It is quite simply this: a device that fires at a velocity of approximately 500 feet per second. That is addressed in this bill.

Finally, I will conclude by saying that through all the provisions in this bill, there would be a huge reduction in the number of firearms in Canada. I agree that we need to address this from several different angles, but the mere reduction that we will see once this bill is passed will have a significant impact, as we have seen in many other countries.

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

Madam Speaker, in comments earlier, the hon. member across the way made it clear in her comments that the desire is to remove guns from our streets and have fewer guns in circulation. There are parts of Bill C-21 I agree with and my caucus agrees with, and we made the good-faith offer to split this bill, address those areas, get them through committee and get them enacted into law.

Why did the government reject that offer?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is so important for us to make sure we get the majority of this legislation through this House and the other place. In particular, the freeze on handguns is essential. That freeze on handguns is one that the opposition is not in favour of, and as I have said previously, they are not in favour of our ban on assault rifles. In fact, they want to make sure that they can bring assault rifles back. We have seen that position in their previous platform, and many times when we have put forward legislation or proposals to restrict the use of firearms or the ownership of firearms, they have opposed them.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as this evening's debate draws to a close, our interventions in the House demonstrate that we need to set partisanship aside and work together to move forward on the issue of gun control.

In that regard, I know that the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, will work very hard to improve Bill C-21, including by bringing forward our proposal on handguns.

How does my colleague from Brampton North feel about the other suggestions my party has made? Earlier I mentioned the idea of creating joint task forces to crack down on illegal weapons, and my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has introduced a bill to create an organized crime registry and expand the definition of organized crime.

It is important to remain open to other ideas and to work together to move this issue forward, setting aside criticism and partisanship.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member is absolutely right. We do need to work together, and our government has been making strides in this area.

We are working very closely with the Quebec government to reduce gun violence, and the Minister of Public Safety recently attended a forum in Montreal to understand the issue better. We have directed $46 million under our guns and gangs fund to the Legault government and we are finalizing a transfer specifically for Quebec under our building safer communities fund to prevent gun crime.

I absolutely agree that we need to work together to address this issue, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned other countries and jurisdictions in her speech, and it made me think of the United States, which seems to be awash in handguns and guns of all kinds. We have not reached that point yet. It is a fact that when we go to the United States, we are not sure if the person sitting next to us on the bus has a gun. We are not at that point in Canada.

Would the member say this legislation is part of an approach to make sure we never reach that tipping point here in Canada?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely I believe in action, and what has been happening in the U.S.A. is very unfortunate. Many have called upon the government to act after a lot of mass casualties. We have seen so many, and just recently once again at an elementary school. It is heartbreaking, and I hope their government is able to pass legislation. I know they have recently passed it in the House of Representatives in Congress, but I hope the Senate will take this issue seriously and listen to all of those who have suffered from gun violence.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

In reference to the last Liberal speaker, I just want to point out and clarify that in the House she referred to assault rifles—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate and not a point of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, it is almost midnight, and I see there are still a number of members of Parliament in the House and a number of us who have participated in tonight's debate, which is no surprise. This is an issue of fundamental importance, and we—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I do not think the parliamentary secretary pinpointed exactly who is in the House and who is not in the House, but I do want to remind members to perhaps stick to their speeches, as opposed to the surroundings of the House of Commons.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was a compliment to the House. I am not sure where that came from. I always get along with my colleague on committee.

In any case, the point is that it is nearly midnight, and we are here debating an issue of such fundamental importance. The starting point for me begins with that fundamental truth, that the role and responsibility of any democratically elected government is to ensure the security and the safety of citizens.

Bill C-21 takes its cue from that. It is about confronting gun violence in Canada through enacting preventative measures that limit future violence. In the limited time that I have to speak on the bill tonight, I want to focus on two key aspects of the bill and then relate those to measures already enacted by the government, which I think highly complement what Bill C-21 offers.

Let us begin with a fact, a very clear fact about violent crime. We know that handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals. For example, in 2020, handguns were used in 75% of armed robberies and in 54% of sexual offences. Those are only two examples, and if I had more time, I could elaborate on those.

Recognizing this, under Bill C-21, if the proposed law goes ahead, the buying, the selling, the transferring or the importing of handguns would no longer be legal. That is an advancement in our society that is generational in terms of its importance.

We saw, a few days ago, a press conference where the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety spoke, but behind them were advocates, many of whom have experienced this in a deeply personal way. Their families have been torn apart by gun violence, completely torn apart, so their perspective informs this bill because the government took the opportunity to engage with them throughout to ensure that their point of view was represented. What I just read, with regard to this freeze of handguns, the freeze on selling, transferring, buying and importing, is reflective of their advice to the government through the consultations that took place. It ultimately means that the market for handguns will be capped.

The measure would see the number of handguns in Canada go down. As we just heard from our colleague from Brampton North, the reality is that, when there are fewer handguns in circulation, it means that society is safer. We will see fewer suicides, fewer homicides and fewer injuries caused by firearms, specifically handguns.

What about lawful gun owners? I think it is a very relevant issue. I know my Conservative colleagues have brought that up. What are the consequences for lawful gun owners under the bill?

Canadians who have a registered handgun, for target shooting, for example, could still use it. I emphasize that. I also emphasize that hunters are not the focus. Hunting is a Canadian tradition. People practice it, particularly in rural communities, but I have a number of constituents in my community of London, an urban area, who hunt. This bill would not apply to them, nor does it apply to sport shooters.

In case there is any confusion, and I know that if there is confusion, it is on the Conservative side, let me just reassure Conservative colleagues that Bill C-21 is not about hunters. It is not about sport shooters. It is not about those who currently own a handgun and target shoot, for example.

Instead, criminals are the focus—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap is rising on a point of order.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is misleading the House when he says that this does not affect sport shooters. He obviously—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate. The hon. member can raise that during questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was just going to offer that to my hon. colleague. If he wishes, we can discuss it, but it is clear, in my view, that sport shooting is not impacted.

Another key aspect of Bill C-21 is the maximum penalty offences such as smuggling and trafficking would go up from 10 years to 14 years of imprisonment. That is an advance of great importance. It is something we have not seen before and is something I know many in the law enforcement community, as well as advocates, have been calling for. From a deterrence perspective, this matters. Taken together with what I just mentioned regarding the freeze on handguns, it complements very much what the government has already done.

I remind the House of those measures, fundamental measures, including the ban placed on no less than 1,500 models of assault-style weapons, including the AR-15. These are weapons designed to kill. One does not need an AR-15, for example, to go deer hunting.

Hunting, as I said before, is a fundamental Canadian tradition. I do not dispute that at all. I have hunted. The reality is that when we have assault weapons in our society, our society, by definition, is less safe. The only real voices championing the view that assault weapons have a place in Canadian society are the gun lobby, who found their way to make a real point to certain Conservative MPs. We saw what happened in the last election, where there was great confusion about the particular point of view on that issue in the Conservative platform, but I digress.

Providing more funding to law enforcement to tackle crime and gun trafficking in particular is something this government has carried out, as well as restoring funding that was cut under the previous government to the RCMP and to the CBSA so they can carry out that fundamental work at our borders. I do not dispute for a moment the important point colleagues have raised here tonight that what happens at the border is of great importance with respect to the issue of gun violence. There is no doubt about that at all.

We need law enforcement to continue its work. We need it to do more and we need to equip its members with the resources so they can carry out all of those responsibilities. This government has allowed them to do that by providing more resources. Of course, there is always more we can do.

I also see in this bill the enacting of wire taps that would be used in investigations relating to gun trafficking would be made easier. That is something that deserves emphasis as well.

Finally, with my remaining time, let me look at another aspect of great importance, which is the $250-million fund announced by the government to deal with gang violence and its root causes. I understand under the bill that access to that funding by local non-profit organizations would be expedited such that in my own community of London, Ontario, for example, local organizations focusing on the root causes of violence and specifically violence that leads to crime, including gang violence, would be able to apply through their municipality, and ultimately to the federal government, for funding to deal with youth intervention programs.

As we know, early intervention is so vital to ensuring young people have the equality of opportunity such that they have a stream toward a more promising future. Other examples could be dealing with the causes of intergenerational poverty. We know there is a connection between gun violence, gang participation and intergenerational poverty.

Fortunately, London has not been struck by a great deal of gang activity, but I know there are other communities throughout the country where gang activity is a real challenge. This fund, and ensuring that organizations have access to it in a very timely way, is important. I understand there will be an effort to move forward with funding in the coming months so organizations can apply and get access. This speaks to the importance of youth.

The perspectives of this bill make youth front and centre and ensure they are a major focus. I commend the government for putting forward a bill that does not ignore youth, because I do not think we could have meaningful legislation dealing with guns and ignore youth. From a preventive perspective, it is quite critical.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite talked about how the bill would not affect the sport shooting community, so let us engage in a quick hypothetical.

Young children today observe their favourite Olympic sport shooter on TV and would like to get involved in that sport. With the freeze on the purchase of handguns, which will not affect the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes because they are not used by law-abiding gun owners but by criminals who use smuggled guns, how would those children, once they become 18, get their PAL and RPAL? How would they get into sport shooting if they are never able to legally and safely acquire a gun for sport shooting?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is very good, as usual, at citing hypotheticals, but he has not pointed at all to anything in the bill that would prevent someone from becoming a sport shooter. The critical thing is to take it back and focus on—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

What would they shoot with? They need a gun. Be serious.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question. If he has another question, then he should wait until asked for questions and comments.

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to wrap up.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to provide my colleague with an answer. The answer is that Bill C-21 deals with criminal activity. For his purposes, though, to reassure him, authorized high-performance sport shooting and athletes and coaches are exempt in the bill. It is under the exemptions.

I am not sure where the Conservatives are coming from. Perhaps they are borrowing from the Bill C-71 playbook from a few years ago where they made a concerted effort to mislead Canadians on this issue of what the government is doing to counter gun violence and criminality. We saw that then and I hope we do not see it this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that he cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly. I would ask members in the House to be careful with the language that they use.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

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

Madam Speaker, I was saying earlier that the government decided to proceed with a freeze that did not take effect immediately, but rather 30 working days after the announcement. This resulted in an explosion in handgun sales across the country.

It appears that the government realized this today. It tried to move a motion at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to refer the regulations directly to the House to speed up the process. The motion was blocked, so we did not get to debate it.

Does the government intend to come back with a similar motion so that we can push this process along before Parliament rises for the summer?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier tonight the Minister of Public Safety spoke to that very issue. I welcome any ideas that can be put in place to counter the challenge and problem that my colleague has pointed out. There has been an increase, as we have seen in news media reports, in the purchase of handguns, so any suggestions to lead to a countering of that are worth exploring.

Again, I go back to the fundamental purpose of the bill. When organizations across the country, many of which have members whose lives have been destroyed because of gun violence, look at measures like a freeze on the selling of handguns, for example, among the other freezes that I mentioned, it is a good thing for the country. I point to the Association of Chiefs of Police. It agrees that public safety would be drastically improved with this bill.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I tried to intervene earlier to say that the member was misleading the House when he said this would not affect sport shooters. It certainly would.

I have family members and friends who participate in the sport of cowboy action shooting. They are using antique firearms, some of them 100 years old and more. They will not be able to use these firearms. They are amateurs, but they compete around the world in countries like Australia and New Zealand. They are able to take their firearms there. Here the government wants to eliminate that opportunity.

How can the member say that and mislead the House?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members not to use that word because it is saying indirectly what one cannot say directly.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has time for a brief answer because we are at midnight.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said before, looking at the bill directly, I would advise colleagues, with enormous respect, to look at the bill before offering commentary on it.

Authorized high performance, sport shooting, athletes and coaches are all under the exemption category. This is the reality. I think it is very important to look at the substance of the bill and recognize that we have to do something to counter gun violence. The government has moved forward in a very important way, in a way that we have not seen in decades. I would advise Conservative colleagues, who are the ones that are really against this bill, to please—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is all the time we have.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment to the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yellowhead.

This is a real opportunity to speak against Bill C-21. The premise of my whole talk today will be that Bill C-21 would actually make Canadians less safe, as it spends sparse resources in ways that are ineffective and targets law-abiding firearms owners instead of the real problem, which is gangs and guns in our inner cities.

In 2018, Public Safety Canada put forward a paper, “Reducing Violent Crime: A Dialogue on Handguns and Assault Weapons - Engagement Paper”. It starts off by explaining what I am trying to explain today:

The vast majority of owners of handguns and of other firearms in Canada lawfully abide by requirements, and most gun crimes are not committed with legally-owned firearms.

It goes on:

Recent estimates indicate that there are about 900,000 handguns registered to individuals in Canada. In most cases, individuals own handguns either in the context of sport shooting activities or because those handguns form a part of a collection.

Later it states:

Any ban of handguns or assault weapons would primarily affect legal firearms owners....

It is not just Conservatives who are saying this; the former public safety minister himself actually said that he knows that handgun bans would not work. In a 2019 interview with The Globe and Mail, he said that months of consultation have led him to the conclusion that banning handguns would be costly and ineffective. Again, that is from the Liberal former public safety minister across the way:

I believe that would be potentially a very expensive proposition but just as importantly, it would not in my opinion be perhaps the most effective measure in restricting the access that criminals would have to such weapons, because we'd still have a problem with them being smuggled across the border.

I could not agree more. That is why I find it strange that the government has not imposed a handgun ban previously and has admitted that it is going to be ineffective and very expensive. Again, the premise is very expensive, and I do not even necessarily want to speak to that, because how can we quantify the life of one of our children? We cannot. They are priceless. Instead, let us actually deal with the problem in a way that would actually save lives on our streets instead of prolonging the problem.

This is a quote from a police officer. Staff Superintendent Sean McKenna of Peel Regional Police recently tweeted:

Another illegally owned firearm seized by Peel Police. This is becoming a far too common occurrence in our community. A municipal, provincial or federal ban on firearms will not stop criminals from carrying them. Root cause issues need to be addressed.

Exactly. Here is somebody who sees the problems on the streets daily and knows where the real problem lies.

Another police officer, Ron Chhinzer, tweeted, “In my time in the integrated gun and gang task force, I don't recall ever seizing a legally owned firearm from any of the investigations that I was involved in.

“The law-abiding population should never suffer or pay because of the unlawful criminal.”

Again, here is someone who is actually on the streets, seeing this first-hand. What I am going to talk about later is how we should give those police officers better resources to deal with the root problems, like recidivism. Criminals get to walk free and commit crimes all over again. We are also not dealing with some of the root causes that cause violence in the first place.

Here is another quote from another police officer, Steve Ryan, who tweeted, “I investigated 150 homicides—never seized one legally owned gun as a murder weapon. In my opinion, it makes more sense to ban legally owned kitchen knives and scissors! Those I have seized as murder weapons. Banning legally owned guns won't decrease violence. Root cause will!”

There is a consistent message coming from our police officers today: The focus should be on the problem instead of on the diversion, the law-abiding firearms community.

Chris Lewis, a former OPP commissioner who works for CTV, is a crime specialist who has been a very vocal opponent of wasting resources on gun bans. Here is a quote from Mr. Lewis: “They aren’t legally owned handguns, nor are they shotguns and hunting rifles. Taking more guns from lawful owners and putting a toothless municipal handgun ban in place will do the square root of sweet”...nothing, I will say, because he uses another word, “to impact violent crime.”

There it is. Even the former commissioner is saying the same thing.

I will go on. I have a few more quotes, and then we will get into more discussion. I am sure there will be questions.

The deputy chief of the Toronto Police Service, Myron Demkiw, stated, “The City of Toronto's experience is that guns are not from law-abiding citizens that are being used in crime. They're guns being smuggled from the United States. Those engaged in handling those firearms are not law-abiding, licensed gun owners; they are criminals with no firearms licence.”

I am a firearms owner. I have my RPAL. I know that it is a very rigorous process to purchase a firearm in Canada, whether it is a non-restricted firearm or restricted. It is very difficult. There is training that is involved and there is a vetting process that is involved, and every day they look at our records to make sure that we can still legally and safely own our firearms.

I will go on to a quote from somebody who is very important. This was part of the recent public safety study. It is from Marcell Wilson. He is the founder and president of the One By One Movement, an organization founded by former gang members, extremists and organized crime members to help identify, address and research strategies on effective social programming for youth outreach.

He explained:

...when speaking on gun control, when we hear the phrase, it should always be synonymous with illegal gun crime and illegal gun trafficking as over 80% of the gun violence we [witness is] committed with illegal firearms smuggled in from the USA.

It has not just been me. I always like to quote other individuals with expertise a lot of better than my own, such as actual police officers on the streets. This is from Marcell Wilson, former gang member, who is really trying to fix the root problem of the issue of kids dying on our streets as the result of illegal firearms.

I think that as Conservatives, this is where we take quite a different position from the Liberals across the way. We Conservatives actually support dealing with the real problem. We saw a Liberal long-gun registry that cost $2 billion the last time. We have another bill, Bill C-21, that is part of resurrecting another long-gun registry and a confiscation regime too. It is going to be in the billions.

My argument is always to just take even a fraction of that money and put it into places where it is going to be effective, such as giving border agents better resources to inspect containers as they cross the border. I do not even want to say the percentage of the containers that are actually inspected, but how about we triple that, or even increase it times 10 to an exponential number of inspections to actually deal with these firearms and stop them right at the border? How about we give inner city police the tools to crack down on illegal firearms and gang activity? How about we give resources to help these police officers deal with these young gang members and try to get them out of those gangs and into productive lives?

We support stopping the revolving door. We even saw recently, with Bill C-5, that the Liberals want to let people who are convicted of firearm crimes out the door sooner than they should be, just to recommit those crimes. Why do we not deal with all of those situations? That will actually cause a real effect, a real, positive change in safety in our inner cities and on our streets.

At the end of the day, I started off by saying that the bill actually makes our country less safe. What the Prime Minister is touting is a bait and switch. Just because he is talking about guns and getting rid of them does not mean he is talking about the right guns to get rid of. He needs to get rid of the illegal firearms on our streets. Once he starts tackling that and stops misleading Canadians about what really will make a change, my hope is that he will finally realize what that is, but I think he uses this issue to divide Canadians. I would rather see us tackle the real problem with illegal firearms on our streets.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for mentioning the excellent study that the public safety committee did on guns and gangs. I wonder if the hon. member is aware that the government is actually investing $250 million into community groups exactly like the One By One Movement that the hon. member mentioned. By no means is the bill intended to be the one solution for gun violence; it is meant to be comprehensive.

In Saskatchewan, the people who are dying by firearms are actually white, rural, older men who are dying by suicide. I am wondering if the hon. member supports the red flag provisions that are in Bill C-21.

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

Madam Speaker, the member across the way highlights the problem. She said there was $250 million to basically deal with the issues in inner cities and to support folks like Marcell Wilson, but it is a fraction of what is necessary.

She is talking about spending probably upwards of $5 billion on tackling the wrong problem, a problem that really does not exist, because lawful firearms owners are not the problem. She is saying that we should keep spending that $5 billion and only spend $250 million on this other problem. How about we spend all that money on what the real problem is? We would be in agreement and would probably support the bill. When the Liberals constantly say they are going to protect Canadians by making laws more difficult for law-abiding firearms owners, it is just ill-focused.

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

Madam Speaker, because I know the member is very knowledgeable as a gun owner, is there any part of Bill C-21 he finds useful as a reform and that would be beneficial? If the bill would go to committee, where would we want to look for making amendments?

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

Madam Speaker, I will answer the question by answering the previous member's question on red flag laws. We already have a very robust system for checks and balances in our firearms owners community. Again, I am a firearms owner. Every day, my name gets sifted through a database to see that I am still capable and safe to own firearms. That already happens. To have more applied to that just to make it more robust is not necessary. We already have that.

What I am saying, and this is maybe what the member is alluding to, is she might believe it is necessary to have Bill C-21, but I do not. I do not see anything that is really of value in Bill C-21 to make Canada more safe. Again, it is misleading the country to say the Prime Minister is doing something positive about firearms. He is not. He could, and I wish he would.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's speech was an evidence-based speech from investigators who have been investigating criminal activity, especially with firearms.

How or why did the government start using evidence from, maybe, politicians to start looking at seizing legal firearms from legal firearms owners when that is not the problem, as he clearly stated?

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

Madam Speaker, again, that is the mystery, is it not?

I do not see what the rationale is. The following is from the Prime Minister himself, who said, “The long-gun registry, as it was, was a failure and I'm not going to resuscitate that”. The current Prime Minister also said, “There are better ways of keeping us safe than that registry which has been removed.”

Here is a person who is in our House today and is bringing forward other rules to probably, I believe, divide Canadians, which is what he does and how he wins. If he really wants to actually crack down on illegal firearms crime and make our streets safer in this country, he needs to look at what the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has looked at, what some police officers are saying and what some of the anti-gang task force are saying to do, and to follow what they are saying to do. He should not spend those scarce and much-needed resources on the law-abiding firearms community. We are not the problem.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with a particular focus on Canadian firearms legislation. It is yet another bill that proves this NDP-Liberal government's incompetence and vendetta against Canadians by being too soft on crime, particularly gun crime, while being punitive towards law-abiding Canadians.

The main premise of the bill is generally to ban the future legal sale of handguns in Canada and increase the allowable penalties for gun smuggling and trafficking. Bill C-21 also outlines an untested buyback program based on a similar approach attempted by New Zealand. The program proved to have numerous substantial issues that the NDP-Liberals conveniently omitted from the contents of the bill. Ultimately, the government claims to advance laws to protect Canadians. However, upon closer inspection, Bill C-21 is riddled with contradictions and faulty premises that are simply an attack on Canadians' safety and security. How can the government claim that it is keeping guns off our streets when the bill itself is grounded in unfounded statistics and a faulty premise from a country that implemented a similar approach, and claim that the increase of maximum penalties will deter crime?

It is incredibly contradictory that the government is introducing Bill C-21 to pair with the equally problematic Bill C-5, further proving that the government prioritizes political gain over the protection and security of innocent, hard-working Canadians already being subjected to the government's ineffective draconian rule.

For the sake of brevity, I will focus my speech on the following: one, the flawed statistics that the government based its argument on in the first place; two, the equally faulty premise riddled with issues from New Zealand's Arms Amendment Bill; three, the government's focus on protecting offenders while punishing law-abiding, licensed Canadians; and four, the NDP-Liberal government's critically misdirected approach to address gun crime and firearms legislation through Bill C-21.

Going back to numerous statistics, gun crime has climbed steadily since the government has been in power and, unsurprisingly, even more so with its “spend-DP” allies. Together, they managed to spend more to achieve less, and Bill C-21 is no different. The foundation of the bill is in reference to a series of records from Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada highlighted that firearm-related violent crime only represents a small proportion of police-reported crimes in Canada, accounting for 2.8% of all victims of violent crime reported by police in 2020.

Furthermore, Statistics Canada states that the numbers upon which the bill is founded are lacking in numerous areas. It quotes gaps in its records such as, but not limited to: one, the types of firearms used in these crimes; two, whether or not the owner of the firearm was licensed to bear arms in the first place; three, where the firearm was procured from to commit the offence; and four, whether or not the firearm was properly or improperly stored. With these piecemeal statistics, I want to know how the government has the gall to insist that it is getting tougher on crime by relying on punitive approaches to licensed gun owners over addressing the real issues of gun-related violence from gangs and their members in our communities.

Bill C-21 did introduce increasing maximum sentencing for certain offences, but increasing maximum penalties will give no reprieve when the minimum penalty would be Bill C-5's option for house arrest under conditional sentencing. Furthering the theme of faulty premises, the government introduced a buyback program that was loosely based on a similar approach adopted by New Zealand in 2019. It was called the Arms Amendment Bill. The recommendation highlighted that handguns would be sold off to authorized parties so long as they were accepted, and then the previous owner would be adequately compensated. This approach should have also highlighted the issues found by New Zealand in adopting such a program: issues the government conveniently omitted from discussions.

Considering that the government is introducing a similar approach, it could be reasonably inferred that Canada would be plagued by similar obstacles. Under New Zealand's Arms Amendment Bill, the program lacked fair and reasonable compensation for gun owners who had legally obtained their firearms from a reputable source, thus leaving some licensed owners scrambling to sell their firearms to select establishments that would accept them.

Inevitably, the limited market of firearms purchasing would leave it oversaturated, with firearms circulating through the buyback program, leaving gun owners undercompensated and frustrated. Ultimately, this would result in significantly more egregious gaps in the already spotty records outlined from Statistics Canada. Without an accurate track of handguns in circulation and sold or procured through the program, how can we accurately account for firearms in Canada?

This program would not account for illegally obtained or smuggled firearms. It would not contribute to the accuracy of statistics we have on firearms-related offences in Canada, and it certainly would not protect and preserve the safety and security of vulnerable and innocent Canadians comprising our communities. Instead of investing in an untested firearms program in Canada, the government should invest in improving support systems and resources for anti-gun violence.

Why is the government pampering actual offenders who are wreaking havoc in our streets with illegally obtained firearms? It should scrap the program, as outlined in Bill C-21, and reinvest the funds into anti-gun-violence resources, provide rehabilitation for demographics prone to gang involvement, and strengthen our border security to avoid the infiltration of firearms in our neighbourhoods. The lack of these common-sense solutions in Bill C-21 only proves that the government is not serious about keeping firearms off our streets. It only knows how to mismanage taxpayers' money to advance its ineffective NDP-Liberal agenda.

The lack of a grandfathering clause in Bill C-21 would force firearms owners to either surrender their firearms to the limited dealers allowed to store firearms, as noted through Bill C-21, or retain their ownership. Either way, this would do nothing to solve the issue of firearms-related crimes in Canada.

If anything, the lack of a grandfathering clause would only contribute to more backlogs and waiting times that plague the country. Canadians do not need another NDP-Liberal manufactured disservice. Regardless of all the other questionable aspects outlined in Bill C-21, the lack of a grandfathering clause would be punitive toward law-abiding folks who have done their due diligence in their licence acquisition to bear arms.

This would only punish the wrong people and enable the criminals who illegally procure firearms in the first place. Where is the government's dedication to offenders' rehabilitation, support for victims and survivors, and conviction to take corrective actions to guarantee the integrity of our judicial system?

Conservatives believe that minimum sentencing should be sustained for heinous crimes, including crimes involving firearms, not only through the enactment of maximum penalties of 10 to 14 years in a correctional facility, but also by shunning the proposal of conditional sentencing, such as house arrest, for offenders. Moreover, Bill C-21 would establish no systems to deliver support or resources to survivors or potential victims of gun violence.

This is not a right-to-bear-arms speech. We Conservatives simply advocate for putting Canadians first and enforcing pragmatic, common-sense solutions to get guns off our streets and limit gun violence in Canada, while protecting the safety and security of our communities.

I now welcome questions or comments from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I notice that Conservatives, when they speak about gun control, always neglect to mention suicides, which account for 75% of people who die by firearms, and gender-based violence, because we know that access to a firearm increases the risk of femicide by 500 times.

I am wondering this. Could the hon. member speak to the provisions of Bill C-21 that would deal with gender-based violence when it comes to restraining orders?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, once again, there is the problem. The issue is actually the mental state of our society, and instead of addressing the mental state of our society, what are the Liberals doing? They are trying to ban legal handguns, which is going to do nothing to help society.

In order to make a better society, we need to make sure we improve the quality of people's lives, and mental health is a big issue. The government did promise during its own election a few months ago that it was going to invest more in mental health. Unfortunately, it did not follow through on its own commitments, as is usual with the Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, we are all trying to reduce crime. We have repeatedly proposed a registry of criminal organizations.

I would simply like to know what my colleague thinks about the Bloc's proposal.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is what we have been talking about. We know for a fact that the biggest issue is illegal guns and the criminal activities of gangs. If we are not going to address the main problem of the crime- and gang-related issues, how are we ever going to tackle the issue of murders or anything of that sort? We need to make sure that these criminal organizations are documented and that we have enough resources for police officers financially and enough officers in order to make sure we are able to address this. If we do not, it is just going to keep escalating, as it continually has under the Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a registered gun owner and all my neighbours are gun owners, but I do not know very many people who have AR-15s or handguns or are interested in getting them. For the people in my region this is not that kind of issue. We want to make sure that the strong rules for licensing stay in place and the safety provisions that we have stay in place.

I want to ask the hon. colleague about the grandfather clause. It seemed to us that in the previous Parliament, having the grandfather clause for people who legally bought those weapons was a reasonable position, as it allows them to be grandfathered if we are going to say no more AR-15s on the market.

The cost we are looking at is enormous. Would the Conservatives consider supporting legislation that had a grandfather clause allowing legal gun owners to maintain their weapons, or have them bought back if they so choose?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the big problem is that by banning these guns we are also banning a lot of opportunities for our youth to become Olympians and sport shooters. If we do not have these opportunities for them, how can they compete professionally across the world? A lot of things in this bill are quite restrictive and would actually penalize law-abiding, hard-working, honest Canadians who are trying to do the sports and programs they enjoy doing. That is why we need to look at other opportunities throughout this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, we have had atrocious gun crimes in this country and horrific tragedies where neighbours tried to warn law enforcement. I remind the hon. member of what happened in his colleague's riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, where Mark Jones in Burk's Falls killed many members of his family before killing himself. In 2020, of course, there were the Portapique killings. Some neighbours even moved away out of fear of the man who later killed 22 people. There is also the tragic case of PTSD that took the life of Lionel Desmond and members of his family.

What do the Conservatives recommend we do about gun crimes in rural and remote areas of this country against family members and random strangers in a neighbourhood?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I said throughout my speech and even in some of the answers, we are not addressing the real problem, which is the mental state of our society, and making sure that law enforcement agencies have enough officers or the financial means to get programs in place. What we really need to start working on is solving the problems, not creating more.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Oakville North—Burlington, the parliamentary secretary. I am looking forward to her comments.

Bill C-21 really represents a momentous step for Canada. We are looking at using this piece of legislation, among others, to eliminate gun violence in Canada. If it is passed, it will be the most significant reform to Canada's gun laws in a generation.

I would like to start by first of all thanking the stakeholders who have contributed to this bill, but more specifically the stakeholders in my constituency of Guelph who have provided feedback that has informed the measures in this bill. Our conversations with them continue.

While much of these consultations were conducted in relation to previous pieces of legislation, I am very pleased to see that this feedback has been incorporated since March 2021, when the former minister of public safety heard from the Guelph area police services, local municipal politicians and the Guelph organizations dedicated to the fight against gun violence. They were concerned that previous proposals allowing municipalities to opt in or opt out of gun control measures would have created a patchwork of regulations across the country that would not have been as effective as what we have in front of us this morning. This bill solves that, and indeed if it is passed, the bill would make it illegal to purchase or sell handguns anywhere in Canada.

This is incredibly important to my constituents and to me in the current context, because for years Guelph was considered the safest place in Canada. While it is still among the safest, Guelph has had an increase in gun violence that is concerning for all people living in Guelph. The gun-related crimes we are seeing in our community, according to public data from the Guelph Police Service, have more than doubled since 2020. There were eight charges of using a firearm in the commission of a crime, which is up from three the prior year.

This is not the direction we want to be heading in, and while the Canada Border Services Agency and other bodies have been provided with more resources by our government to help prevent gun crimes, the reality is that we need to stop handguns from being sold in the first place. Even one crime involving a firearm that could have been prevented is one crime too many. I have heard members across the way say that the illegal trafficking of guns is a concern. It is a concern, but the legal transmission of guns is something we can do today to address the movement of guns in our community.

This is important, especially when we consider the data we are getting from researchers at the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability, at the University of Guelph. It shows that nearly six out of 10 women killed are murdered by their current or former partner, while only 6% of these women are killed by a stranger. Just over one-third of the total number of femicides are committed by a perpetrator armed with a gun, more than any other method of killing, while the likelihood of a woman being killed by a gun goes up to 42% for women living in rural areas.

This bill looks to address this alarming reality. It would permit authorities to revoke a firearms licence in cases of domestic violence or criminal harassment when a protection order has been issued against a current licence-holder or when a red flag order is issued. I am encouraged to see that the advice of organizations representing women and survivors has been included in the amendments to protect the identity of the person who is asking the court to apply for this mechanism of using red flag or yellow flag laws. This is just one example of how feedback from communities affected by gun violence has been integrated into this bill.

Similarly, this bill also seeks to better protect Canadians experiencing mental health crises. Over 80% of gun-related deaths are suicides, which is a heartbreaking reality. The impact of this is felt not only by the individuals, but by their families and entire communities. In fact, last week I spoke to a veteran of the Afghanistan war, and one of his comments was about how many of his comrades have died since the war to suicide. Guns are being used in those cases.

One of the most heartbreaking elements of this is speaking to families of individuals who have dealt with this loss. They tell me that it is possible it could have been prevented if guns had been removed from the situation in the first place. These are legally purchased firearms.

Through this bill, a yellow flag or red flag would make it more likely that such a tragedy could be prevented. As in other appropriate cases, a chief firearms officer could suspend an individual's licence for up to 30 days if a member of the public, such as a family member or neighbour, contacts the chief firearms officer with information about a licence-holder being at risk. This would allow someone to recover or seek treatment without having the ability to purchase guns or acquire them.

The urgency of this bill is clear, but unfortunately since the government has stated its intention to pass Bill C-21 into law, we have seen a spike in the number of handgun sales across the country. By introducing additional regulations, the government is preventing a surge in handgun purchases in the period between now and when it is passed, which is the right approach to ensure that the bill is not aiming at a moving target.

The premise and rationale of this bill are sound. It recognizes the reality that handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals and that banning their sale inherently makes other people safer. Not only is the prevalence of gun crimes increasing in Guelph, as I mentioned, but since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81%, and 47% of Canadians say that gun violence poses a serious threat in their communities.

We only need to look across the border to see that if we continue down the path we are on now, it is only going to get worse until it is many times harder to correct the situation. We need to learn from what we see in Canada and the scale of gun crimes in other countries, and not dismiss mass shootings as something that cannot happen or does not usually happen in Canada. We need to act now, and this bill takes a common-sense approach to achieve the ambitious action of reducing gun violence while respecting law-abiding owners of guns, such as farmers.

It is truly unfortunate there have been several unsuccessful attempts by some of the people here to mischaracterize this bill as something that could target law-abiding gun owners. That is simply not the case. The legislation is in no way about targeting legal gun owners. In fact, its sole purpose is to create safer communities for every single Canadian. Gun owners who adhere to the law will not face any undue hardship as a result of this bill. Clearly, handguns are not used for pest control or to shoot deer.

I would like to take a moment to address the concern that some have raised regarding the source of handguns used in gun crimes in Canada. While some have said that handguns are not legally obtained anyway, the reality is that the majority of gun crimes in 2020 involved originally legally obtained and domestically sourced guns. Over 50% of these guns can be traced.

To combat crimes committed with handguns that are obtained outside Canada, our government has invested $350 million to strengthen the RCMP and CBSA's capacity to intercept guns coming across our borders. We know that this has been effective. In fact, last year the RCMP and border services intercepted nearly double the number of firearms than the year before.

We are heading in the right direction. We are making it tougher on people who smuggle guns by going from a 10-year to a 14-year penalty. We are looking at introducing further money to help with guns and gangs through the building safer communities fund for our communities. The provisions that we have in Bill C-21 are complementary to the other work we are doing in mental health and in controlling access to things that can hurt Canadians.

I look forward to questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know if there is any evidence you have that says that handguns—

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

I have no evidence.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the member has any evidence that supports legal handguns being used in the commission of an offence. In fact, I would say it is zero, as one member already talked about.

Does the member agree that to get to the root problem here, there has to be crime prevention to prevent people from being involved in illegal gun crimes? Doing that is going to cost billions, so rather than a buyback program, would those billions of dollars not be better suited going toward the actual root cause of the problem and prevention?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reason we are consulting with police chiefs, as well as people involved in the enforcement of laws in Canada to prevent crime, to come up with legislation like this, is also why we get their endorsement. We are working locally with our chief of police in Guelph, but we are also working across Canada with chiefs of police to make sure that this legislation gets it right. We are getting great feedback from chiefs of police on this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his detailed speech.

I have a simple question. They say that they want to take action on illegal arms trafficking, yet it has been documented that Bill C-21 will do nothing to prevent illegal arms trafficking. Is my colleague aware of that?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we are working on through this legislation is specifically handguns that are being sold and purchased in Canada. The smuggling that the member across the way is referring to is being dealt with in other ways, such as putting $350 million of additional resources into CBSA, and through other legislation that is specifically targeting the importation of guns and the banning of AR-15s and 1,500 other assault-type rifles from coming into our country in the first place.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member comes from the general GTA area, as do I. He and I have been through a number of elections. As chair of the public safety committee, I listened to endless testimony about guns. I have yet to hear a coherent reason why anyone in Guelph or anyone in Scarborough—Guildwood needs to own a handgun or an assault rifle. If he could elucidate that core point, maybe we could get somewhere with this legislation.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, from conversations I have had with gun owners in Guelph, I know they go to the shooting range and to businesses that provide opportunities for them to use handguns in target-shooting activities. Those facilities will still be able to have guns available for people to use, but to actually purchase a gun and use it in some way to protect oneself from the public is really what we are trying to address here. Guns are used in ways that endanger the public, rather than protect the public.

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

Madam Speaker, we had discussions in the session this morning about the New Zealand example. As I recall, we saw this legislation right before the election. It initially had a voluntary buyback program. Having said that, we have seen flaws in how New Zealand handled this. That was a point made by some Conservative members.

I know there was push-back from groups concerned with gun violence, that a voluntary buyback program was not as good as a mandatory program. Can the hon. member for Guelph bring any information forward as to why the government changed its position on voluntary versus mandatory?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot provide that information to the hon. member. I was not part of the discussion that was going on around buybacks. What we are dealing with is to say that as many guns as we have in Canada right now is the most that we will ever have. This legislation will freeze the growth of handguns in our communities, which is resulting in the growth of crime in our communities.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Working in this place as an MP is a privilege that I do not take lightly. I have had the opportunity to work on many issues since I was elected, and one that I am most proud of is the actions we have taken to prevent gun violence.

Today, we are debating Bill C-21, a milestone achievement, built in large part on the voices and advocacy of so many survivors of gun violence, their families and loved ones, and doctors who see the burden of injury of gun violence.

I would like to express my deepest thanks to PolySeSouvient, the Centre culturel islamique de Québec, the Danforth families and the Dawson families, Doctors for Protection from Guns, the Coalition for Gun Control, Dr. Alan Drummond and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Alison Irons, and every single individual and organization advocating for better gun laws in our country. They have shaped the bill that is before the House of Commons today. Their unrelenting advocacy has led to a piece of generational legislation, which, as part of a broader strategy to tackle gun violence in this country, will make Canada a safer place for all of us to call home. A sad truth about those who are called to this kind of advocacy work is that it is often inspired by indescribable pain, which comes from surviving gun violence or losing a loved one to it.

Combined with the measures the government has already put in place, as well as our investments in communities and at the border, Bill C-21 marks the next significant step in our fight to eliminate gun violence. Bill C-21 is good news for the public safety of our communities, our institutions and our most vulnerable citizens. It would add new tools that will be used to reduce needless deaths from domestic violence and suicide.

We know that gun control is a women's issue. The Canadian Women's Foundation notes that the presence of firearms in Canadian households is the single greatest risk factor for the lethality of intimate partner violence. Access to a firearm increases the likelihood of femicide by 500%. I have heard from groups like the Lethbridge YWCA, which told me that every single woman who came to its shelter had been threatened by a partner with a firearm. They are among the nearly 2,500 women victimized in this way over the past five years. Intimate partner violence accounts for nearly 30% of all police-reported violent crime in Canada. That number has risen during the pandemic. In my riding, and across the country, local organizations like Halton Women's Place are helping to shine a brighter light on the dangers of gun violence.

Lindsay Wilson was a bright 26-year-old about to graduate from university, with the world in front of her, when her ex-boyfriend stalked her and, using his legally obtained firearm, shot and killed her. I met her mom, Alison Irons, during the study on Bill C-71. I was proud to be involved in passing that bill, which requires enhanced background checks to prevent those who have a history of violence from owning a firearm. Regulations found in that bill, which have now come into force, will help police trace illegal guns and ensure that firearms licences are verified. It makes sure that those who should not own a firearm cannot own a firearm.

Just last month, the minister asked the RCMP to do more. In the recently updated mandate letter for the commissioner of the RCMP, the RCMP has been asked to work with chief firearms officers across Canada to ensure that they can respond to calls without delay from Canadians who have safety concerns about an individual who has access to firearms, and to work with police of jurisdiction to remove firearms quickly. This change responds to concerns from physicians, survivors of intimate partner violence and victims' families.

I recently talked to Alison Irons, Lindsay's mom. She told me that the actions we have already taken, as well as those included in this bill and the RCMP commissioner's mandate letter, might very well have saved her daughter's life.

Let us talk about what those potentially life-saving changes included in Bill C-21 would do. The bill aims to prevent individuals with a prior or current restraining order from obtaining a firearms licence and would empower authorities to automatically revoke the licences of those with a new restraining order. The bill also introduces new red flag laws allowing courts to remove guns from and suspend the licences of people who pose a danger to themselves or anyone else.

Over 75% of those who die by firearms in this country die by suicide. The proposed red flag laws are one tool to stop deaths by suicide and domestic violence, adding another layer of protection that those supporting them, such as doctors, shelters and family, can use to prevent violence. Bill C-21 marks an important next step in removing guns from the hands of abusive partners.

We cannot forget that Bill C-21 is following the ban on AR-15s and other military-style assault weapons. This important decision prohibited over 1,500 models of these weapons. Since then, over 300 more have been prevented from entering the market. Our government is also committed to a mandatory buyback program to get these weapons out of our communities once and for all.

There is no one fix to ending gun violence. That is why we are undertaking the significant work to stop gun violence in all its forms.

Earlier this spring, the Minister of Public Safety officially launched the $250-million building safer communities fund, which will see an accelerated rollout over the summer. In partnership with community leaders, we are helping youth make good choices to set themselves up for lifelong success.

Investments in gang diversion and gang exiting strategies are so important because the underlying causes of gun violence are varied, complex and interrelated. We will not be able to solve gun crime through this one piece of legislation or one action. We need to take an intersectional approach that addresses poverty, inequality, systemic racism, mental illness, social isolation, substance abuse, extremist ideologies and access to affordable housing, education and health care. To confront gun violence, we must confront systemic challenges within our institutions, including within the criminal justice system. That is why I am so proud to be part of a government that is willing and eager to take on these challenges.

Taking action on gun violence means taking a number of important steps: banning military-style assault weapons, taking action at our borders, building safer communities and passing this new bill. Bill C-21 represents a milestone. It introduces a national freeze on the sale, purchase or import of handguns by individuals into Canada. We have made clear that action on handguns cannot wait.

Regulatory amendments to advance the national freeze on handguns have been tabled in both the House of Commons and in the other place. In fact, recently, at the public safety committee, with the support of the NDP and the Bloc, we attempted to fast-track those regulations, but the Conservatives said no to urgently getting handguns off our streets.

The bill recognizes the role organized crime plays in gun violence. If people are in the business of trafficking guns, they will face stiffer sentences under the Criminal Code. If people alter the magazine or the cartridge of a gun to exceed its lawful capacity, they will face new criminal charges. If people are involved in organized crime, they will face new police authorities, such as wiretapping, to stop gun crime before it happens. Furthermore, this spring's budget dedicated additional funds to the RCMP and CBSA so they can build on the record number of illegal guns seized at the border just last year. These are responsible, common-sense measures that all Canadians can get behind and in fact have gotten behind since the bill was introduced.

Cumulatively, these efforts mark the most significant efforts in a generation to end the burden of injury from gun violence. We are committed to moving forward on a strategy to prevent gun violence across our country. Bill C-21 is an important part of that strategy, and I am calling on all colleagues in the House to pass the bill quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to note that it seems that Bill C-21 was brought in on the back of American politics. I am wondering what the member has to say about importing American politics into Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, that could not be further from the truth. As the hon. member knows, gun control was a big issue during the last election campaign. In fact, the gun lobby chose to come to my riding twice to distribute pamphlets to try to make sure that I was not re-elected to be able to take action like that contained in Bill C-21.

To say that we are following events in the United States is simply not true. Having said that, I think it is irresponsible for any of us to think that we are immune from that kind of gun violence here in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on this step forward. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill. That said, as we have made clear for the past few weeks, we would really like to see improvements to Bill C-21 in committee.

As I said earlier, finding a solution to curb organized crime is nearly impossible. That has been documented. According to the Montreal police service, 95% of handguns used in violent crimes come from the black market.

How is it possible that with all this information we cannot improve a bill to address the whole problem instead of just part of it?

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

Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague and any amendments that may be put forward by the Bloc.

It is important, as I mentioned in my speech, to recognize one bill will not fix everything when it comes to gun crime. Certainly, we heard testimony at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security about issues at Akwesasne, the ability to patrol that border and the need for financial investments in the police service at Akwesasne.

The investments we have already made with the RCMP and with the border are important, but certainly there is more we can be doing. I look forward to working with the Bloc to ensure that we do.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a great amount of respect for my colleague. As she knows, the NDP supports the goal of getting military-style assault weapons off the street with a mandatory buyback of prohibited firearms. We also welcome the announcement that the government is getting serious about cracking down on gun crime.

However, we received letters and calls from hundreds of concerned airsoft owners and businesses who simply do not understand why there is to be a prohibition on the importation, exportation and sale of airsoft guns under this legislation. Maybe my colleague can share who the government, when it prepared the bill, consulted with from the airsoft industry, those who are directly impacted by this bill, and if it is going to consult with the airsoft industry?

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

Madam Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to speak to the police service in his riding. When police officers are responding to a call, they have only seconds to be able to know whether they are dealing with a real gun or whether it is an airsoft rifle. Unfortunately, the rifles used at airsoft ranges look so much like the real thing that police do not have the opportunity to check to see and people have lost their lives.

Police officers are put in a very difficult position. I look forward to hearing from the airsoft industry. I am sure its members will be speaking to us at committee when we study the bill, but I would invite the hon. member to speak to the police in his area about the challenges it has with airsoft rifles.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary heard the question I asked earlier to the member for Guelph. The first version of this bill, before it died on the Order Paper, was a voluntary buyback program. We have now moved to it being mandatory. I would appreciate any light she can shed on the government's change of heart.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her work on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with her on this. The executive director of the National Firearms Association said that we would have to rip his two AR-15s from his cold, dead hands. That is the reason we had to go to a mandatory buyback program.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

It is always a pleasure to rise in this House to speak to legislation, even bad legislation.

I will be frank. I think Bill C-21 has about as much chance of stopping gun violence as there is of me crossing the floor to join the Liberals. It is just not going to happen. The bill will not work because it is the wrong approach, and the sad thing is that the government knows it is the wrong approach. It knows it will not work, but it is doing it anyway.

I will talk about why it is doing that in just a minute, but let us be clear. Gun control is an important issue. Everyone in the House has agreed that we need sensible gun control, but in this legislation there is the same problem we have come up against every time with the government, and that is that, when it decides it wants to tackle gun crime, it completely ignores the problem. It goes after law-abiding citizens rather than doing the hard work of going after the bad guys. This is because it is easier to control the behaviour of those who already obey the law than it is to deal with those who do not.

Conservatives are eager to tackle this issue. We want to have common sense laws. There are even things in this bill we can get behind, but instead of a serious and honest conversation, we get virtue signalling. We get a Prime Minister who is so eager to import U.S. culture wars into Canada that he politicizes tragedy for his own political benefit rather than taking concrete steps to protect the lives of Canadians. Why is that?

I need to remind the Prime Minister that we do not live in the United States. He is the Prime Minister of Canada, not a pundit for MSNBC. I am not so naive as to think that what happens in the U.S. does not affect us, particularly with the saturation effect of U.S. media, but every time some controversial issue or potential wedge issue pops up south of the border, it would seem that the Prime Minister rubs his hands with glee and wonders how he can weaponize it and use it to divide and control Canadians, whether it is abortion, race, gender, immigration or, what we are talking about now, guns. He seeks to take U.S. issues, import them to Canada and weaponize them to stigmatize and divide Canadians. These are serious issues, and we need to address them, but we need to address them as Canada's Parliament. They are uniquely Canadian issues, but the Prime Minister does not want to do that because it is easier to control people through fear, anger and division than it is to convince Canadians based on the merits of a particular argument.

I spoke in the House last week on the subject of control and how the government wants to pick winners and losers. We see it in the economy. We see it in the media. We see it in society. One group gets federal funding because it agrees with the ideologically of the government and another group does not. One media outlet gets federal funding and the next one does not. Certain people can have their charter rights to travel because they have agreed with the ideology of getting the shot or the second, the third or the fourth. Those who question the government based largely on consistently inconsistent and conflicting information from government sources, not to mention the principle that personal medical choices are private, lost their jobs. They were stigmatized and demonized again and again, and it is still happening.

When certain folks had enough and drove to Ottawa to express their opposition to his overreach, the Prime Minister would not meet with them. He ran away and hid. He and his ministers spun a narrative about these individuals. They said things in the media that have been proven to be false again and again. Where is the accountability for that misinformation? He enacted the Emergencies Act, not, as we now know, on the advice of law enforcement, which is another untruth, but because he had to control. He crushed those people with the full weight of his powers. Why did he do that? It was not because of science or any credible threat, but because of control. He wants to control what we do, what we think, what we can see online.

It was the Prime Minister's father who stated that the government has no business in the bedrooms of Canadians. The government not only wants to be in the bedroom, but also in every other room. It wants to be on every device, and every speech and every thought, and I am not so sure if the government is doing this out of a sense of insecurity. A relationship where one side refuses to listen to the other and always needs to be in control is not a healthy relationship. A relationship where one side belittles and demeans the other is not a healthy relationship. A relationship where one side uses a power differential to force submission is not a healthy relationship. It is an abusive relationship, and right now the relationship between the government and Canadians is not a healthy relationship.

The government has abused power and continues to abuse power, aided and abetted by the New Democrats, who, for a lack of fortitude and courage, are willing to compromise their convictions and sell out to Canadians for just a whiff of power. This is not about public safety. It is about the government controlling the little people, the law-abiding people. Every time government adds to its power to exercise control, individual Canadians lose some of theirs. It only exacerbates and perpetuates the problem.

I look at this bill. I look at how the government went about that process and how it has conducted itself in the past two years, and all I see is another attempt to control law-abiding Canadians. Now, with my remaining minutes, I would like to shift gears a bit because I do want to talk about violence.

There is no greater evil than to perpetuate violence. It is why our criminal justice system reserves the most serious sentences for those who inflict harm on others. However, violence is not a political issue. It is not an issue of hate, but it is an issue of the heart. In my faith we call it sin, which is the corruption of the image of God in humanity. It is a moral defect, the natural expression of which is to inflict harm on ourselves and others. It is a condition and a state of being from which we must be healed if we are ever to find wholeness and peace.

It is a heart issue, and the interesting thing about a heart is issue is that we cannot legislate it. We cannot legislate against what is in a person's heart. We can try, and the government has and will continue to try, and fail, because laws do not fix hearts. Laws cannot eliminate the anger, loneliness or hopelessness that individuals who commit heinous crimes feel, but what laws can do is attempt to control the external factors that contribute to the anger, loneliness and hopelessness that lead to an individual committing such heinous acts. To that end, I would like to offer a few brief suggestions.

We are never going to be able to fully eradicate violent crime, but if we want to get serious about curtailing it, we need to start with our kids. As parents and grandparents, we need to know what they are watching in the media and on social media. We need to know what they are consuming in their minds, which eventually finds its way into their hearts, and the video games and entertainment many of our children and grandchildren are accessing.

We know kids are impressionable and that, even as young adults, people are still developing until their mid-twenties. We know what habitual consumption can do and about neural pathways that habits and patterns create in the brain.

“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”, and we can naturally extrapolate that the body acts. To put it in simple terms, what we put in is likely what will come out. There is an expression that was quite familiar when computers first became very prevalent: “Garbage in; garbage out.” Studies have shown, consistently, the direct correlation between violent video games and being not only desensitized, but predisposed, to violence. As early as the year 2000, which was 22 years ago, a study by the American Psychological Association revealed “that even brief exposure to violent video games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants.”

We see similar patterns when it comes to sexual violence. There is no limit to the depths of depravity and dehumanizing behaviour individuals, including children, can view with just the click of a mouse. That is why in the House we have continually called on the government to take action against Quebec-based MindGeek, which owns Pornhub, one of the largest producers of pornography in the world, including illegal content that is racist, misogynistic and violent, as we have shown in the House in the past.

We recognize that pornography not only isolates individuals, but also creates unhealthy and unrealistic depictions and expectations of sexual behaviour, which leads to violence against women. We know this, but when a young person, or for that matter an older person, is routinely exposed to violence and pornography, they will develop radical and racist views, and that is what many people are consuming for hours a day, day in and day out. We should not be surprised when violence follows.

There is the story in the Bible of the very first murder. It is recorded in the Bible, and it is the story of Cain killing his brother Abel with a rock. The problem was not the rock. We do not read the story and say, “If only God had tougher rock control policies.” The rock was a tool. Jealousy, anger, feeling sorry for himself and feeling hard done by were what motivated the irrational rage that brought on the inability to get past himself and his own desires.

Cain lost control and acted out of his emotions. The problem was not the rock; the problem was the heart.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said during his speech that “personal medical choices are private”. He spoke a great deal about control.

Does a woman have control over her own body and are a woman's medical choices of sexual and reproductive health and abortion private and a choice between a woman and her doctor?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member was listening carefully, she knows that I was actually trying to talk about Bill C-21. That is the gun control issue, the control that the government is seeking to have over law-abiding Canadians who enjoy the sport of sport shooting, who are hunters or farmers who need firearms to conduct their business.

This bill directly attacks individuals like that and makes their lives miserable. Why does the government do it? The government does it because they are easy targets. They are not really criminals.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to change my question, actually.

As I was listening to my colleague, I thought he was absolutely right about how humans should be filled with love, not hate. If that were the case, we would not be here debating what the government can do to make people's lives miserable or just for kicks or whatever.

That being said, it seems to me that until such time as everyone is filled with love and goodwill, prevention is obviously in order. By that, I mean that, when something is amiss, situations should be monitored closely and there should be a list of gangs so that preventive action can be taken and people can be shown a little more love to help them feel even more at ease in their heart and soul. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc actually goes to the root of the whole issue here, which is what the Liberals and the NDP are failing to do. She is addressing the actual problem that is the heart of the issue.

Certainly, as I said in my speech, there need to be proper controls but reasonable controls, controls that will actually be effective and that will actually work—not controls that target law-abiding gun owners and farmers and hunters, but controls that go after gangs and seek to address the illegal importation of firearms into the country.

Those are the things that this legislation should address, and it does not address them.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is really around the importance of a healthy CBSA.

We know that we need to have enough people on the ground watching for the guns that are coming over the border. I represent a region with a lot of people who have guns for shooting at the range and of course for hunting. I also represent 19 Wing and I want to acknowledge the work that it has done to address some of the serious realities of drugs and guns being transported across the border.

The Conservative Party, in the last government that it formed, cut over 1,000 CBSA workers' jobs. This was a major concern then. I just do not understand how they can talk about wanting to take this challenge of getting illegal guns off the streets if they are not willing to make sure that the people are there to staff that effort.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member was doing so well with that question to start with, until she started criticizing and spouting off information about cuts to the CBSA. The public accounts show that this is actually not the case and that those cuts were not made.

I do share the member's concern with properly funding the CBSA. It does a tremendous job. We expect a lot from it and we want to make sure that it is properly funded and that there are adequate resources for it to do the job of stopping the illegal importation of guns and weapons into Canada from the United States.

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

The member for North Island—Powell River is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, perhaps many would think that this is a point of debate, but I do think that when a member is referring to a woman parliamentarian and indicates that she is “spouting off” instead of stating her position, maybe we should look at more respectful behaviour in the House.

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

Well, it is not a question of debate. It is actually a question of how we address colleagues in the chamber, and it would be very helpful if members are respectful to one another when speaking in the chamber.

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

Madam Speaker, I found the hon. member for Provencher's discussion of issues of the heart and issues of the law compelling.

This quote from the Reverend Martin Luther King is relevant:

It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me.

I wonder if, in that regard, the hon. member thinks there is a role for the state in regulating gun ownership.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think I said something very similar to what the member quoted from Martin Luther King in my speech. I thank her for reiterating that laws cannot regulate the heart, but certainly the actions that proceed from what is in an individual's heart can be regulated.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to add my voice as well to the debate around Bill C-21, which is a very sinister bill that comes out of the evil intentions of the Liberal government.

Why do I say that? It is because the bill before us will do nothing to end the crime sprees that we are seeing happen across the country. The bill will do nothing to end the violence that is happening in our streets. The bill will do nothing to support law enforcement in bringing these people to justice and holding them to account.

I hear over and over from community members that criminals are operating with impunity in broad daylight. They do not seem to fear the police whatsoever, or authorities of any sort, and that is the hard work that needs to be done. However, the Liberals are not interested in doing that hard work, because they know that this hard work will not score them political points. Therefore, I lay at their feet that the bill before us is a feeble attempt and that the Liberals should reconsider what they are doing.

Bill C-21 will not reduce gun crime and it will not reduce crime that is happening in our streets across the country. Why? It is because it would not give the authorities new tools; it would not provide new funding for law enforcement; and it would not allow for law enforcement to make quick interventions in these kinds of situations.

In Calgary, not a month ago, people in two cars racing down the street were shooting at one another. One car collided with a minivan and killed a mother of six children. Community members were asking, “How does this happen in broad daylight? Why did these criminals think that they could operate with impunity?” Well, that is because they did not see that there would be any consequence to what they were doing, and that is the challenge. That is the challenge of governing and it is what is required of government, which is to ensure a reward to those who do good and punish those who do evil.

This government is not doing that. For that, it gets a failing mark on Bill C-21.

This particular bill, although it takes the easy way out, would go after law-abiding firearms owners. The people who are already obeying the law and jumping through all of the hoops to own a firearm would only have another hoop placed in front of them. They would not be able to purchase new handguns or be able to transfer those handguns to their offspring and those kinds of things. Under this particular bill, they would be the last generation of handgun owners.

Many of these firearms are heirlooms handed down from generation to generation. Many of my constituents speak with pride about the firearm that their great-grandfather used to own, and they have it in their collection. It is something they will no longer be able to pass down if Bill C-21 comes into force. How will that prevent criminals from operating with impunity in broad daylight? It will not.

That is a punitive, lazy and evil outcome of this particular bill. It would take away a freedom that Canadians have to pass on their heritage to their children, but it would not equip law enforcement or communities in order to prevent criminals from acting in broad daylight, making our communities less safe and a place where the gangsters rule, rather than law and order.

The Liberals claim law and order is their goal, but in reality we know that it is not. If they were actually focused on tackling some of these tough issues around restoring law and order, making criminals fear authorities, putting power behind the authorities and providing political support for law enforcement to do their job, we would see a restoration of peace and security in these communities. However, we have seen the Liberals tacitly support the “Defund the Police" movement; we have seen them radically reduce the length of sentencing that comes from participating in gun crime with Bill C-5; and we have seen their failure to adequately call out the firebombing of churches across the country.

All of these things have allowed gangsters and communities to feel like there is no law and order being upheld in particular communities. Where I come from, rural crime is a large and growing issue. People do not even phone the police anymore, because they are quite convinced that nothing will be done. The police will do the investigation and make the arrests, and the perpetrator will be out again the next evening. Then, when it does eventually go to trial, the whole case will be thrown out on some technicality. This does not bring justice for the victims, but it also does not put the perpetrators on a path to restoration to the community or a path of rehabilitation so that they can operate in the community.

These are some of the things that Conservatives have been calling for. We have been calling for the government to work to back up the police. My dad is a World War II history buff and he has a poster on his wall of a soldier going off to war. It says, “Buy Victory Bonds. Back him up!” That is essentially what we are calling on the government to do, to back up the law and order of this country and to provide the political support to ensure that law and order can be enforced in our communities. That is one of the major things we are seeing, whether it is in downtown Toronto, whether it is in Surrey, British Columbia, whether it is in Calgary, whether it is in northern Alberta or whether it is in Fairview, Alberta. That is something we are calling for.

Another thing I want to bring up as well is about some of the sports that involve firearms, particularly the handgun-shooting sports. I have a good friend up in Slave Lake who participates in a particular type of competition around this. He is of elite skill. I do not have any concern that he will not be able to get the elite skill exemption that is placed in this bill, but his question is, how does one become elite? One becomes elite by starting out as an amateur. One becomes elite by beginning at the bottom of the totem pole: buying one's first handgun when one is 18 years old, going to the range, learning how to shoot, getting a mentor, all those kinds of things.

In hockey, we have thousands of people who play hockey who want to make it to the NHL. The same thing happens with elite handgun-shooting competitions at the Olympics. Typically, there are thousands of people who are participating at the amateur level so that we can have one or two make it to the Olympics to represent Canada on the world stage. How are we going to ensure that we have a strong and growing base of people to draw from for those things?

The other area of competition I want to talk about is paintball and airsoft. These two particular sports are going to be extremely penalized by this particular bill, because many of the paintball markers or airsoft tools look like a replica of a firearm. How does that help anybody in Canada? Many times these are replicas that are used for training purposes. They are used for simulation purposes. Again, the point is that if we want to have Canadians competing at the Olympic level, we need to ensure that we can use these particular tools.

I find that Bill C-21 is a sinister bill. Bill C-21 does not do the things that it is purported to do. I look forward to the defeat of this bill and the government providing support to law enforcement to restore law and order in our communities.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague during his speech spoke about trying to stop “gangsters”, trying to stop the wrong people from getting access to guns, and he made reference to the fact that we are doing nothing as a government to ensure that that is the case. However, I myself, as a former parliamentary secretary, was at two announcements held in my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, at the CBSA training facility, where we announced $30 million to provide more funding to train more canine units, whose purpose it is to sniff out contraband from entering our country, including guns, and more money for CBSA officers so that we can have more boots on the ground to stop these guns from coming into our country.

Why is it that my hon. colleague comes into this House and speaks about how we need to be doing more to stop these guns from coming in, to help ensure that we stop the “gangsters”, yet he himself and his party voted against both of those proven and effective initiatives?

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

Madam Speaker, the thrust of my speech was around providing the political support to restore law and order in our communities. The Liberals fundamentally do not support our law enforcement and fundamentally do not support our justice system to ensure that criminals can be brought to justice. The Liberals reduce the sentencing whenever they can. They tacitly support the “defund the police” movement. They do not call out criminals when there are major crimes across the country. That is emboldening criminals and eliminating Canadians' trust in our institutions, namely our police forces and our justice system.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I recently met with the Canadian Airsoft Association, which wanted to make sure we understood that Bill C‑21 targets air guns, toys and paintball guns because of how they look, not what they do. The association thinks that is wrong. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

How will the Conservative Party be working with the government and the other opposition parties during the committee's study?

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

Madam Speaker, I could not agree with my colleague more. This bill is a sinister bill that goes after law-abiding Canadians, rather than doing the hard work of going after criminals and gangsters, who are operating in broad daylight in our country. We need to ensure that our justice system and our police forces have the trust of Canadians and that Canadians, when they look out in their communities, say that our institutions are more powerful, stronger and capable of dealing with criminals who are operating in broad daylight.

Rather, under the current government, we see a deteriorating trust in institutions and a deteriorating acknowledgement that we should call the police when there is a problem because they will do something. Rather, we see that people will not call the police when a crime is committed in their community, because they do not think the police can do anything about it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is an issue that should be of concern for all of us in this House, and that is the use of firearms in the case of intimate partner violence. In fact, in 2018, over 500 cases involved firearms in the case of intimate partner violence. What do the Conservatives think should be done to address the use of firearms in the case of intimate partner violence? I do believe this bill is also attempting to address that as one of the issues.

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

Madam Speaker, I would just note that for a very long time already, in order to get a firearms licence in this country, people have to have it signed off by their conjugal partner. That is a fair analysis. I also believe they can revoke that consent at any time. The law was good on that. The Liberals are tinkering around the edges once again.

Again, this is a distraction from the hard work that needs to be done around getting criminals who are operating in broad daylight off the street and empowering our law enforcement and our justice system to hold these people to account and ensure that our communities are safe.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Whitby.

I want to recognize that I am speaking to the House of Commons from traditionally unceded Algonquin territory.

I am speaking today on a very important bill, Bill C-21, an incredibly important bill that addresses the proliferation of handguns in Canada and the need for greater measures to protect community safety.

Just by way of a refresh, our work on gun control, as a government, started much earlier. Since 2015, we have banned AR-15s and listed 1,500 models of assault-style firearms as prohibited. We have cracked down on illegal trafficking by investing in law enforcement and enhancing border security. We have invested $250 million to address the root causes of gang violence.

Bill C-21 is part of the evolution of this approach and it is targeting specifically handguns. The question is why. We know that gun violence in Canada is on the rise. Since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81%, and handguns are the number one type of gun used in shooting homicides in this country.

Around 47% of Canadians have reported feeling that gun violence poses a serious threat to their communities. My community of Parkdale—High Park is no exception. My city of Toronto is no exception. We know that handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals in Canada, and that criminals obtain their guns through different means: smuggling, theft or what is known as straw purchases.

For example, the horrific Danforth shooting a few years back in Toronto involved a gun that was originally a legal firearm that was stolen in the province of Saskatchewan. We are trying to address part of the problem, which is the supply of handguns that are circulating in Canadian society.

How will we do that? This bill would freeze the market. Individuals will no longer be able to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns, subject to some very narrow exceptions. This means that there will never be more handguns in Canada than there are at the moment this bill passes. I just want that to sink in for members of Parliament, because that underscores the need to ensure community safety by passing this legislation as quickly as possible.

That begs the question, what about other sources, such as the borders? We are addressing borders and smuggling as well. While Bill C-21 limits the domestic supply of handguns, what we have done at the borders, and we have heard this injected into the debate by people like the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, is that we have made a $350-million investment into the RCMP and the CBSA, in their capacity to intercept weapons coming across the U.S. border. While we venerate our relationship with our strongest ally and our largest trading partner, that trading partner also happens to be the world's single largest manufacturer of firearms on the planet.

When we made that investment, and I will note this for the people watching on CPAC, the Conservative Party of Canada voted against that investment, betraying its perspective when the rubber hit the road, in terms of voting patterns.

What happened after that historic investment? Let us look at the evidence. In 2021, the RCMP and the CBSA intercepted nearly double the number of firearms at the border than they had in 2020. The investments in border safety are working to keep our communities safe.

Both in this debate and in the context of other debates about firearms and gun control in this legislature, at least in the time I have been here, since 2015, we have heard a lot about the narrative about victims, that the focus needs to be on the victims. Let me talk about three victim groups that I feel are strongly served by a bill like Bill C-21.

The first is women. The member for Vancouver East just asked a very poignant question of the member who just spoke from the official opposition, about victims of intimate partner violent and things like gender-based violence. We have heard, and it is fairly common-sense, that if there is violence in the home, the presence of weapons in the home would accentuate the propensity of that violence to end up being lethal. That is exactly what has happened. A stat was just provided that 500 instances of intimate partner violence involved firearms. That is almost two per day in terms of how frequent that is. That is an alarming statistic for all of us who are concerned about violence, and I am sure there is no debate that all of us in this chamber are concerned about intimate partner violence.

What does this bill do? This bill would provide, among other things, regulatory authority that will allow for an individual who is the subject of a restraining order to be prevented from having either a firearm or a firearms licence. We know that the number of women who are killed at home because of intimate partner violence and gender-based violence is far too large. That is why we are working to address this.

The next area I would like to address, in terms of whom we are supporting, is those who are dealing with mental illness. We know that we have a concern about mental illness, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic.

We know that rates of suicidality are going up. We know that when people are contemplating suicide, or having what is called suicidal ideation, the presence of a weapon can, again, be lethal. We know that guns in homes lead to greater numbers of suicides in this country. There are members of the official opposition who have called for various measures, and they are right to call for them, to address suicidality and to address getting people support.

One way of ensuring that suicidal ideation does not result in death is by restricting the numbers of firearms in homes. This bill would do that. I found it a bit perplexing, to be candid, to hear, in the debate just prior to my intervention, about the notion of background checks. It was raised by the Conservative member who just spoke. When the issue of background checks was moved in the House of Commons in the previous Parliament, the Conservative Party again voted against that aspect of the legislation. That is really troubling for a party, when all parliamentarians need to be addressing the need to ensure that lawful firearms are only put into the hands of people who should have firearms, not people who may perhaps be suffering from mental illness.

Let me address a third group, and this one is really important to me in the work that I have been doing for the past seven years. What this legislation would do through the red flag provisions is address people who could be targeted by hatred. I am talking about people who might be racial minorities and religious minorities. I am talking about people who could be targeted online, and the women I spoke of earlier. If such people have a legitimate basis or reasonable grounds to believe that a firearm should be removed from the home of a potential assailant, or someone who was stalking or threatening them, etc., they could apply for a court order to do just that. The court order raising a red flag could be for a limited period as short as up to 30 days. A long-term prohibition order could be all the way up to five years, if there continued to be a reasonable basis to believe the individual posed a public health risk.

The removal of the weapons could be done immediately, via a court order that they be surrendered immediately to law enforcement. This is important because we heard from, and listened to, women and minority groups who are targeted by violence. They are targeted by hatred and are threatened. They told us that their fears are real and that there are fears of reprisal.

I am going to get to an aspect that we have improved in this legislation. What they have said is that they were not going to come forward because if they did so, it would put them in even greater vulnerability. They would have a greater sense of jeopardy, with a higher likelihood of potentially fatal consequences. What we have done with this iteration of Bill C-21 is we have improved it. We have listened to those stakeholders, and we have cured what we feel is an aspect of the old Bill C-21 that needed curing. This is in terms of protecting the identity of those persons who would apply for such a court order.

Under the current version of the legislation that we are now debating, a court could close the court hearing to the public and the media. A court could seal the documents in the record for up to 30 days and remove identifying information for any period of time, even permanently, if the judge felt that was necessary. That is important because it gets to the heart of this issue: that people who are facing threats and have very legitimate fears need to be emboldened to come forward and not be afraid to come forward. This is what this legislation would do. It would allow for such people to be protected.

I want to point out the types of people who have been calling for the red flags. One amazing group is a group of physicians called Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, and I salute their incredible work. I had the occasion to meet with some of them, including Dr. Najma Ahmed and Dr. Julie Maggi. Many of their colleagues were doing incredible work from a medical perspective about this being a public health crisis that we are dealing with, in terms of firearms violence.

I also want to salute the lifetime work of my constituent, Ms. Wendy Cukier, a professor at TMU in Toronto and also the president of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control. I first met Wendy when I was a parliamentary intern in this chamber in 1995. She was doing work back then, 27 years ago, to promote better gun control. She has never wavered in those 27 years. I salute her for the success that this legislation has achieved.

The last piece I want to address in closing is the idea of having municipalities deal with this on a one-off basis. Having bylaws in individual municipalities would create a checkerboard. It would not serve the constituents of Toronto if guns were banned in Toronto but available in Markham or Mississauga. The same would apply across the country.

We are taking a national approach because this is a national issue and a national crisis. It is important for victims. It is important for women. It is important for people who are suffering with mental illness. It is important for racial and religious minorities. I firmly support this bill, and I hope my colleagues will, as well.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary made his speech and said that ending the sale of legal handguns, handguns that are bought by individuals who have already gone through the clearance of getting a restricted possession and acquisition licence, is somehow going to take illegal guns off the street. He made the outrageous statement that this would hypothetically put a stop on how many handguns are in circulation in Canada today.

We know that handguns are being used on the streets by gangs, thugs and people involved in the illicit trade of drugs and other contraband. They are the ones who are actually trading in illegal and smuggled handguns that have come from the United States and other ports of entry. How are they going to stop that and instead go after the actual criminals committing the crime rather than the legal, law-abiding firearms owners in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, obviously we have a very strong philosophical and principle difference on this issue. As a basic proposition, I would put to him that Canadians' safety is improved when we restrict the number of firearms in circulation. Any efforts in that regard, of which this bill is one, will benefit Canadians' safety. That is my first point.

The second point is that I do not dispute that there are concerns with the border. That is what I identified in my opening intervention. When issues come up about supporting the CBSA and RCMP at the border, in terms of their ability to intercept weapons, I hope this time the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and his colleagues on the Conservative benches will vote in favour of those investments instead of opposing them.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about what is in Bill C-21. I would like to hear his thoughts on what is missing from Bill C‑21, starting with a ban on assault weapons.

The government has decided to proceed through regulatory changes. Some 1,800 models of assault weapons are currently banned. The government has proposed a mandatory buyback program, but it is still not in place. Public consultations have yet to begin.

If the government takes a model-by-model approach, there is a risk that some will be forgotten or that new ones will appear on the market. We proposed amending the Criminal Code instead, in order to clearly define what a prohibited weapon is. That way, they can all be dealt with at once.

The Liberal Party seemed happy with that proposal, and I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on it.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my Bloc Québécois colleague's question and her work on public safety.

Among the possible options, we decided to proceed through regulations rather than a bill, because this approach is sometimes faster.

I understand my colleague's impatience and why she is eager to see regulations on assault weapons. Let me assure the member that several of my Liberal colleagues and I will fight to have these regulations made as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the doctors who have spoken out in favour of gun control. I have heard doctors talk about gun violence being a public health issue and the burden of injury from gun violence being too high. That includes not only people who die from guns used in crime but from suicide and gender-based violence.

I wonder this. Could the hon. member comment on the fact that our colleagues across the aisle in the Conservative Party never seem to mention that burden of injury from gender-based violence and suicide, and completely ignore all the women and men who die by suicide or as a result of gender-based violence?

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

Madam Speaker, it is lamentable. What I recall is actually being with that member at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the last Parliament and doing a study on acts of coercion and acts of aggression. Witnesses came from all parts of the country, including witnesses invited by the Conservative Party. When we put to those witnesses whether the presence of a firearm in the home increased jeopardy and vulnerability or decreased it, the answer was very straightforward. It obviously increases jeopardy. This is not something that should be partisan. This is not something that should be politicized. We all have a stake in addressing domestic violence. This is one way to do it.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity today to join this important debate.

Let me begin by saying two words: Resolute and realistic. I think the Minister of Public Safety said it best. Resolute and realistic is what this government has strived to be since we began tackling gun violence as soon as we were elected to lead this country almost seven years ago, and these adjectives have been our true North Star. We know that no single bill or initiative has the power to single-handedly end gun violence. That is being realistic.

We also know that morally, ethically and humanely we are bound to do all we can, using all resources at our disposal, to stop senseless deaths and injuries from firearms. That is exactly what we are determined to do. In other words, we are resolute. We believe it is the only appropriate response to the tragedies we have seen in our communities, from the École Polytechnique in 1989 to Portapique in 2020 and all the deadly incidents in between that did not receive widespread media coverage precisely because they were all too common. Let us not have any doubt about it: These are preventable deaths. The grief of the victims' loved ones will never be fully soothed, and those who survived will always carry with them the trauma of what they experienced. We must resolve ourselves to do anything and everything that we can to ensure no one else has to live through these horrors. That is why we have introduced decisive actions such as implementing a national freeze on handguns so that no new handguns can be brought into Canada or bought, sold or transferred within the country, and implementing red flag laws to protect those who are most vulnerable from gun violence at the hands of intimate partners. These are the strongest gun control measures this country has seen in over 40 years. These measures will save lives.

I would like to share a few important statistics with my colleagues. We know that the more available guns are, the higher the risk of homicides and suicides. Handguns are the most commonly used firearms in homicides. Suicide by firearm accounted for 75% of all firearms deaths in Canada between 2008 and 2018. Victims of intimate partner violence are about five times more likely to be killed if a firearm is present in the home. Members should think about that. Of guns used in crimes, 58% are traced to domestic sources that are predominantly from straw purchasing and theft. This means that, contrary to what the Conservatives keep telling us, these guns are legally obtained initially. Making handguns unavailable to buy, transfer or sell and prohibiting new handguns from being brought into Canada just makes sense. Reducing the number of guns in our communities means reducing the number of victims of gun violence.

Let us be clear. We are realistic. We know that a national freeze on handguns, however strong and effective a measure it will be, cannot end all forms of gun violence, of course. That is why this bill contains numerous other measures to complement and strengthen Canada's gun laws. A priority for this government is protecting women who are disproportionately victimized by intimate partner violence that often involves guns. Bill C-21 contains legislation to revoke or deny firearms licences for people who have a protection order against them or have been involved in domestic violence, criminal harassment or stalking.

The red flag provisions of this bill are also designed to protect women and other vulnerable persons. Under these provisions, anyone could apply to a court to remove firearms from someone who may be a danger to themselves or others. We can imagine the utility of a law like this. We can imagine the lives saved in situations where people were experiencing abuse and feared for their lives at the hands of their partners who owned a firearm, or for firearms owners who tell their friends they have suicidal thoughts or ideation. Bill C-21 also contains yellow flag provisions, where anyone can ask a chief firearms officer to suspend and examine a licence if there are grounds to suspect that person is no longer eligible to hold a firearms licence.

These are all strong measures, and we know there are those who, as responsible firearms owners, may worry that these new laws would affect them. Canadian gun regulations and requirements are already robust, and we know that the majority of firearms owners take great care to own and operate their firearms safely in accordance with these rules. We have taken care to ensure that the privileges of lawful gun owners would not change. Current handgun owners would continue to be able to possess and use firearms for as long as they own them.

Bill C-21 is targeting handguns, not firearms used for hunting or sport shooting. However, as the Prime Minister has said, there is no reason other than these activities that the general public should need guns in their everyday lives. Let us think about it. All it takes to take a life is the pulling of a trigger. Do Canadians really need to own lethal force to be used at any moment? I do not think so.

Firearms owners can rest assured that, as always, we will consult with Canadians before finalizing and implementing regulations. The bottom line is that Canadians know that this government is serious about gun control and has been since we were elected. Since 2016, we have invested more than $920 million to address gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of gangs and criminals.

Budget 2021 committed $312 million over five years for the CBSA and RCMP to increase intelligence and investigative capacity at the border and increase the RCMP's ability to trace gun crimes and detect straw purchasing. We have made significant strides in combatting gang violence as well, with $250 million committed to support municipalities and indigenous communities with anti-gang programs through the building safer communities fund. This builds on the $358.8 million under the 2018 initiative to take action against gun and gang violence for provinces and territories. This is not to mention that under the leadership of the previous minister of public safety two years ago, we took the bold step of banning assault-style weapons, prohibiting over 1,500 models of such firearms.

This is how we are combatting gun violence and how we will end it. We have a suite of comprehensive measures that prevent it from taking root in the first place, that protect vulnerable individuals when there is reason to believe violence is imminent and that remove guns from the hands of those who have malicious intentions. We cannot wait to take action.

I speak for all my colleagues when I say that we have already seen too much violence in each of our home constituencies. I know I have. There have been too many tears with too much grief, because even one person lost to gun violence is too many. I implore my colleagues to pass Bill C-21 as quickly as possible. Let us end gun violence in Canada now.

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

Madam Speaker, I read a number of days ago with great interest a story about an Ottawa-area lifelong hunter who had his firearms taken away because of a tip from a local community mental health area that said the man was not taking his medication. Police moved immediately and seized this man's firearms. It was only after petitioning a judge and demonstrating to a judge that he did not have any mental issues that he got his firearms back.

I found it curious that the member said we currently do not have the capacity to take firearms away from people who are going through mental distress, when we see quite clearly here in the Ottawa area that it is already happening. Would the member not agree that the government and the police already have these tools?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know the specific example the member speaks of, but embedding red flag and yellow flag laws within legislation would only give additional tools to law enforcement and individuals who suspect that someone has suicidal ideation or may harm others. That is a good thing. We can all probably agree that the fewer the number of individuals who commit suicide via a firearm and the fewer the number of people who are in firearms shootings, the safer Canada will be.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know why my colleague's government decided to go with a freeze rather than a ban. As members will recall, the May 2020 assault weapons ban and regulations came into effect immediately. Now, the government is proposing a freeze on handguns but has realized that it will not take effect for 30 business days.

Why did the government not take a different approach to ensure that this could be implemented quickly? If the government were really serious about getting handguns off our streets, it would have taken a different approach.

I would like my colleague to explain to me why his government decided to go with a freeze rather than a ban.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question is a good-faith question, and I appreciate it.

The freeze on handguns definitely limits the market. It starts to regulate the market so that there will be no more handguns in circulation in Canada from the moment this bill reaches royal assent. That allows us to start to understand and work on the issue of getting guns off the streets in a way that respects the lawful possession and acquisition of the firearms that many legal, law-abiding gun owners have. It is a compromise and a good step forward.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing my colleague's party promised in 2019 was to make sure that the CBSA had the resources it needs to detect and stop the flow of weapons at our borders. Just like the Conservatives did with Veterans Affairs when they cut a third of the staff, which has led to a backlog of over 40,000 disability applications for veterans, they cut 1,000 positions at the CBSA, which are required to stop the flow of weapons at the Canada-U.S. border.

My colleague touched on some of the improvements the government is going to make at the CBSA, but when will it fully restore all of the positions that were cut by the Conservatives, and in fact bolster them, given the increase in gun violence and the illegal importation of weapons coming into Canada?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government knows that illegal gun smuggling is important, as is increasing the investigative capacity of the CBSA and the RCMP to investigate purported gun smuggling and crack down on it. We have increased the penalties for those who are caught, from 10 to 14 years. To my knowledge, we are increasing capacity at our borders and ensuring that our law enforcement agencies can share data and information to have better intelligence on these matters.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, very few recent mass shooters in this country had criminal records of any kind. Consider shootings in Fredericton, Danforth, Quebec City and Moncton. Could the member comment on how Bill C-21 would help reduce and even eliminate mass shootings across the country?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, this goes to show that just because people are law-abiding gun owners when they purchase a gun does not mean they are not capable of committing an act in a heated moment. It is important for us to realize that limiting gun ownership and restricting guns are going to help reduce gun crime.

The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms) be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Second Reading

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying I will be sharing my time with the always incisive member for Rivière-du-Nord.

Some debates are complex, difficult and delicate. They elicit strong reactions, and even divide us and help create rifts in our society. The debate on Bill C-21 is a striking example.

I remember that this is the first file I commented on publicly after I was elected for the first time in fall 2019, and here we are at the end of the session in my second term, in June 2022, and we are still talking about it.

I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois will still be voting in favour of Bill C-21 at second reading, but we believe that the bill should be improved in committee. My colleagues can rest assured that the Bloc will try to be as constructive as possible, but our now-famous dynamic duo, namely the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord and the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, could explain it better than I can, since they have asked the Minister of Public Safety many questions on the issue. I will begin my speech by addressing certain aspects of Bill C-21, then certain points more specifically related to femicide and, lastly, other points focusing on domestic violence.

First, given the numerous events in the news in Montreal lately, Bill C-21 is a step in the right direction, but it will have little effect in the short term and change practically nothing in the streets of Montreal. The most important new feature in this bill is a complete freeze on the acquisition, sale and transfer of handguns for private individuals. Legal handguns will therefore disappear on the death of the last owner, since it will be impossible to bequeath or transfer the guns to others.

However, the bill includes exceptions for people who need a handgun to perform their duties, such as bodyguards with a licence to carry, authorized companies, for filming purposes for example, and high-level sport shooters. The government will define by regulation what is a “sport shooter”.

Those who already own a handgun will still be able to use it legally, but they will have to make sure to always renew their licence before the deadline or lose this privilege. The bill freezes the acquisition of legal handguns, but we will have to wait many years before all of the guns are gone, through attrition. In contrast, the number of illegal guns will continue to grow.

The federal government estimates that there are more than one million legal handguns in Canada and that more than 55,000 are acquired legally every year. The federal freeze would therefore prevent 55,000 handguns from being added to the existing number, but it does nothing about the millions of guns already in circulation. The Bloc Québécois suggests adding handguns to the buyback program in order to allow owners to sell them to the government if they so wish. In short, we are proposing an optional buyback program.

However, one of the problems is that, according to Montreal's police force, the SPVM, 95% of the handguns used to commit violent crimes are purchased on the black market. Legal guns are sometimes used, as in the case of the Quebec City mosque shooting, and it is precisely to avoid such mass shootings that the Bloc Québécois supports survivor groups in their demands to ban these guns altogether.

Bill C‑21 does nothing about assault weapons either, even though manufacturers are custom designing many new models to get around the May 1, 2020, regulations. The Bloc suggests adding as clear a definition as possible of the term “prohibited assault weapon”, so that they can all be banned in one fell swoop, rather than on a model-by-model basis with taxpayers paying for them to be bought back. The government wants to add to the list of prohibited weapons, but manufacturers are quick to adapt.

Also, Bill C‑21 will have no real impact on organized crime groups, which will continue to import weapons illegally and shoot people down in our streets. The Bloc Québécois has tabled Bill C-279 to create a list of criminal organizations, similar to the list of terrorist entities, in order to crack down on criminal groups that are currently displaying their gang symbols with total impunity while innocent people are dying in our streets. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will discuss this bill in more detail, since he is the sponsor.

The most important thing for getting to the heart of the problem is reducing the number of guns available. Bill C‑21 increases prison sentences for arms traffickers, from 10 years to 14, and makes it an offence to alter cartridge magazines. It was already illegal to possess cartridge magazines that exceed the lawful capacity, but the government is now making altering cartridge magazines a crime.

Second, as the Bloc Québécois critic for status of women, I am regularly asked about this type of bill. What is interesting in this case is that Bill C‑21 incorporates the red- and yellow-flag system from the former Bill C-21. With the red-flag provisions, the Criminal Code will allow any individual to ask a judge to issue an order to immediately confiscate firearms belonging to a person who could be a danger to themselves or others, and even to confiscate weapons belonging to a person who might make them available to a person who poses a risk. The order would be valid for 30 days, and judges could take measures to protect the identity of the complainant.

The yellow-flag provisions would allow chief firearms officers to temporarily suspend a person's firearms licence if they have information that casts doubt on the person's eligibility for the licence. This suspension would prevent the person from acquiring new firearms, but it would not allow for the firearms they currently own to be seized. However, the person would not be allowed to use those firearms, for example at a firing range.

A new measure in this version of Bill C-21 is the immediate revocation of the firearms licence of any individual who becomes subject to a protection order or who has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking. This measure has been lauded by many anti-femicide groups, like PolyRemembers. There are several such groups, far too many, in fact.

This includes restraining orders and peace bonds, but also, and this is interesting, orders concerning domestic violence and stalking, including physical, emotional, financial, sexual and any other form of violence or stalking. A person who was subject to a protection order in the past would automatically be ineligible for a firearms licence.

However, there is another problem in relation to gun smuggling. The bill contains only a few measures and, I will say it again, it does not mention a buyback program for assault weapons or even the addition of a prohibited assault weapons category to the Criminal Code, two things that are absolutely necessary.

It is important to point out that 10- and 12-gauge hunting rifles are not affected by the ban. The gun lobby tried to sow doubt with a creative definition of a rifle's bore, which is now limited to under 20 millimetres. The bill therefore does not affect hunters. I know that many hunting groups are concerned about the new measures, but we need to reassure them that assault weapons are not designed for the type of hunting they do.

Getting back to assault weapons, the government as already planning to establish a buyback program through a bill in order to compensate owners of newly prohibited weapons, but it did not do so in the last legislature. If the government persists in classifying guns on a case-by-case basis, the number of models of assault weapons on the market will continue to rise. That is why the Bloc Québécois suggests adding a definition of “prohibited assault weapon” to the Criminal Code so that we can ban them all at once.

The Liberals keep repeating that they have banned assault weapons when there is nothing preventing an individual from buying an assault weapon right now or going on a killing spree if they already have one, since a number of models remain legal. Having already come out against this in Bill C‑ 5, the Liberals are also sending mixed messages in removing mandatory minimum sentences for certain gun crimes.

Third, I know that this bill will not stop all cases of femicide, but it is significant as part of a continuum of measures to address violence. There is still much work to be done, for example in areas such as electronic bracelets and health transfers, to provide support to groups that work with victims and survivors.

On Friday, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled its report on intimate partner and family violence in Canada, and that is essentially the message I wanted to convey in my supplementary report. I hope it will be taken seriously. We will also need to work on changing mindsets that trivialize violence and try to counter hate speech, particularly online.

To talk a little bit about the bill, it relates to cases of violence, and we mentioned electronic monitoring devices. The bill would provide for two criminal offences that would qualify for electronic monitoring, including the authorized possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm or ammunition. That is a good thing. Something worthwhile came out of the work that we did at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

In closing, we are not the only ones who are saying that this bill does not go far enough or that it needs more work. The mayor of Montreal herself said that this bill does not go far enough. She said, and I quote:

This is an important and decisive measure that sends the message that we need to get the gun situation under control. The SPVM is making every effort to prevent gun crime in Montreal, but it is going to be very difficult for police forces across the country to do that as long as guns can continue circulating and can easily be obtained and resold.

There is still work to be done, and we must do it. We owe it to the victims. Enough with the partisanship. Let us work together constructively to move forward on this important issue. We cannot stand idly by while gunshots are being fired in our cities, on our streets and in front of schools and day cares. Let us take action to put an end to gun culture.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Bloc members are going to be voting in favour of the legislation, yet I am a bit surprised about the most recent vote. Surely to goodness they recognize that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support the legislation and that it is the Conservatives' intent to see the bill never go to committee, yet the Bloc seems quite content to allow the Conservative Party to filibuster it at second reading. I was surprised that the Bloc is not recognizing the value of having time allocations, given the track record of the Conservative Party.

To that end, my question to the member is this: To what degree does the Bloc party want to see this legislation ultimately passed? She made reference to the fact that it is an important issue, which we know it is. If it goes to committee, she indicated there could be some possible amendments. Would she like to see the legislation ultimately passed before the end of this year?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

I believe I mentioned this in my speech, but we do want to work on the bill. We do want to study it in committee. That is not the issue. The previous vote was to condemn an affront to democracy.

Right now, the Liberals are constantly imposing closure. They are ultimately the only ones responsible for their legislative agenda, and they have done nothing. They are also responsible for the Conservatives' current filibustering. These two parties have led us to a dead end.

That is what we were condemning in the previous vote, not Bill C-21. Frankly, this government offends against democracy. It is acting like a majority government when it is in fact a minority government. That is the mandate it was given by voters. That offends me.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Shefford for her fantastic speech, as well as for her passion, especially on this issue that affects her profoundly and personally. Bravo.

Our constituents ask us about this issue. It comes up all the time in my riding, Drummond, because there are many airsoft fans there. They are concerned. They do not understand why these toy guns were not immediately excluded from the bill, since they only look like weapons and are essentially harmless.

The fact that we are unable to debate this bill for any length of time means that details like that may be ignored and overlooked. That troubles me. I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are also concerned, and that is why I said that the bill is incomplete. We need to review the matter of airsoft guns and rework the bill accordingly in committee.

This is obviously not the final bill. We hope to be able to make amendments and rework it constructively in committee, as I said before. We should not be accused of being obstructionist because of the previous vote. As I mentioned to my colleague from Winnipeg North, that is what some people are saying in light of the Conservatives' filibustering, but we do not want to be associated with that. We really want to move this bill forward by proposing constructive amendments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to follow up on the question that was just posed to the member, is it the position of the Bloc Party that there should be no restrictions on airsoft guns?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is not what I said.

I am saying that there is work to be done. We must be able to identify these weapons and study the entire issue in committee. The member for Winnipeg North tends to put words in my mouth at times, as he does with many other members. That concerns me as well. When we talk about misinformation—

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

Order. The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, since we are on the topic, I will follow up to the question.

I am glad we discussed airsoft guns, even if the discussion was far too brief. Airsoft fans themselves have proposed some solutions for clearly identifying the guns so they could not be used to commit crimes.

There were proposals on the table long before Bill C-21 was introduced. That is what my colleague wishes we could have discussed. I simply wanted to add my two cents.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, this type of proposal was made. Groups that make proposals must be heard, just as the political parties seeking to improve bills in committee must be heard.

With a minority government, it is even more important to listen to what the other parties are saying and not act like a majority government. That is one example—

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

Order. Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Rivière‑du‑Nord.

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

Madam Speaker, I will try to live up to the compliments my colleague from Shefford just gave me. I think she does outstanding work on the status of women, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank her.

As we have said, Bill C‑21 is a good bill. The Bloc Québécois plans to vote in favour. That said, it does need to be improved in committee.

Let us talk about the pros. It puts a freeze on the acquisition of legal handguns. That is a good thing. As we know, right now, over one million such weapons are in circulation across Canada. Every year, over 55,000 of them are acquired legally, increasing the total number of handguns in circulation in Canada. We do not need one million handguns in Canada. We hope it will be possible to cap and significantly reduce the number of weapons in circulation, which do nobody any good and can be very harmful under certain circumstances, as we have seen in recent years.

To deal with that issue, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that the government bring in a voluntary buyback program. That was not included in Bill C‑21, but we would have really liked to see that in the bill. The owners of these legally acquired weapons are not breaking any laws, but considering that these weapons are so harmful that we want to freeze their acquisition and restrict their circulation, let us go for it. This is a step in the right direction, as is often said, but let us go one step further and bring in a buyback program. It would be voluntary, not necessarily mandatory, at least not at this time. The government should be able to take these handguns off of people who want to hand them over, thereby reducing the number of such weapons in circulation.

Now let us talk about assault weapons. Gun manufacturers are finding ways around the regulations adopted over two years ago on May 1, 2020. Everyone knows this. Manufacturers just have to modify the models slightly so that they no longer match the prohibited models. The government has decided to draw up a list of banned assault weapons. Of course, like any list, it is not exhaustive, and there are ways to get around it.

[An hon. member]

Even the Liberalist?

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

Madam Speaker, even the Liberalist can be circumvented, but that is another matter.

What we are saying is that we would resolve a big part of the problem that was mentioned regarding air gun users. We are proposing that the bill include a clear definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, rather that listing all the weapons that are banned. There are currently 1,800 weapons on that list. It is never-ending. Weapons would need to be added to the list annually or even monthly to cover everything that needs to be covered. We would not be able to keep up. Instead, we should establish a clear definition of what constitutes an assault weapon and then ban them all. A weapon that does not meet the established definition would be allowed. That would surely satisfy the many firearms users who are telling us that the gun they use is being banned when there is no reason for it because it is not a real assault weapon. If we clearly define what constitutes an assault weapon, we can avoid a lot of discussion and problems regarding air gun users.

What really takes the cake is hearing the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice tell us that the increase in maximum sentences set out in Bill C‑21 will solve a lot of problems with crime, shootings and so on. We have been opposing Bill C-5 for months because the bill is unexpectedly and inopportunely going to eliminate minimum sentences for gun-related crimes. We are saying that the minimum sentences for gun crimes must not be reduced. People want us to do something about the shootings. In the case of that bill, the minister told me not to worry about it because criminals do not care about the elimination of minimum sentences. That does not concern them. There is not one criminal who worries about what the minimum sentence is before they commit a crime.

Today, not even a week later, the Minister of Public Safety is boasting about how great the government is for taking action on shootings by increasing the maximum sentences. Something does not add up here. I do not get it.

About increasing the maximum sentences from 10 to 14 years, I think that someone committing a firearm offence cares more about not getting caught. Is the maximum 10 years or 12 years? I would be surprised if that person thought long and hard before committing the crime. Having said that, we obviously cannot be against this measure. I think it is a good measure, but it will have virtually no effect on the growing crime rate.

Then there are the yellow-flag and red-flag provisions. This is a good thing. For quite some time, many women's groups and victims' groups in the community have been saying that someone who becomes threatening or violent should have their licence and weapons taken away. The red-flag provisions would allow for the confiscation of a firearm from someone who is a danger to themselves or others. If someone is accused of domestic violence or stalking and a protective order is issued against them, their licence could be revoked or at least suspended.

The red-flag and yellow-flag provisions are a good thing, and the Bloc Québécois is happy to support them. We thank and commend the government for them.

As far as cartridge magazines are concerned, they are already limited to five bullets or a bit more depending on the type of gun. We were glad it was limited because no one who goes hunting needs a cartridge magazine with 20 bullets, unless they are a bad shot. If so, they would be better off staying at home. Limiting the capacity of cartridge magazines to five bullets was already a good thing. Bill C‑21 also seeks to prohibit the alteration, import or resale of these cartridge magazines and make it a Criminal Code offence. These are good provisions that the Bloc Québécois supports.

Again, I want to reiterate what my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and I have been saying for weeks in the House: There is a problem. Bill C‑21 is a good bill, but 95% of the shootings happening right now every day in the streets of Montreal and elsewhere are committed with illegal handguns that were acquired on the black market.

That is what people want us to tackle. People talk very little about legal guns, if at all. They do talk about them, that is true, but those guns are not used to commit most crimes, although it does happen. Once again, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑21, but what is the government doing about the illegal guns that are used to commit 95% of crimes?

The Bloc Québécois is very worried about that because our voters are worried about it. Perhaps Liberal voters are not worried about it, but I will let the Liberals discuss it with their voters. People are talking about it in our ridings. People call my riding office and ask me when will we solve the problem of people shooting at one another in the streets of Montreal like in a western. It is outrageous, and we must act. However, Bill C‑21 does nothing about that.

Last week, Quebec announced $6.2 million to tackle gun smuggling through Akwesasne. That is a good thing, and we were pleased. However, Quebec should not be paying for it, given that border control is a federal responsibility. It would seem that the Liberals are not interested in managing things that fall under their jurisdiction. It is disappointing and worrisome for the public, and for the Bloc Québécois.

As my colleague from Shefford stated, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C‑21. However, once again, we are very disappointed with this government's complacency on the issue of guns illegally crossing our border.

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

The hon. member for Drummond on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, out of curiosity, I just want to make sure that we have quorum for today's debate.

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

I will check.

And the count having been taken:

We do have quorum. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect the member was curious about quorum because there were no Conservatives, but I will not say anything further on that.

To the member, I want to go back to air guns, which look like and appear to be real guns, although they are replicas. What is the Bloc's position on that? Does it believe air guns that replicate real guns are a danger to society?

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know it is against the rules of this place to reference the presence or absence of members, and I would suggest that the statement made by the parliamentary secretary may have approached, and possibly even crossed, that line. I would encourage you to make a ruling on that matter.

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

The hon. member is quite correct, and I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to take note.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would apologize for making note there were no Conservatives in the chamber.

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary knows that we cannot say indirectly what we cannot say directly. I would like to insist on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, unreservedly, I apologize.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague's comment about air guns, I will say that the bill needs to explicitly define what an air gun is. I think that the assault weapons that this bill is meant to ban need to be better defined. Such a definition would necessarily exclude air guns, which are for recreational purposes. We could also define what kinds of air guns are acceptable, based on the air pressure in the cylinder, for example. There are a variety of criteria that could be used. I am not a firearms expert.

One thing is certain: What matters most is not the toy guns being used for play, but the real guns shooting real bullets in our streets. I would like people to stop avoiding the topic and stop talking about toys. We need to be talking about the real weapons that are being used to kill real people in our communities every single day.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was glad to hear the member say that the Bloc is supporting the red flag laws, which would allow for the removal of firearms from homes, because we know that, in this country, there are about 10 intimate partner violence incidents a week involving firearms.

Would he agree with me that is one of the reasons for urgency in getting this bill through Parliament? Despite other concerns we have about the bill, I think it is very important that we do something to help remove firearms from homes with intimate partner violence.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. This needs to be done as soon as possible. It is past time. In my opinion, it should have been done long ago. I never understand why the government waits and stalls like this, but I agree that this should be done quickly. I thank my colleague for his question. I am not saying that we will support each and every clause in the bill. We will see as we go. However, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that it moves forward and to steer clear of unnecessary, counter-productive roadblocks.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Rivière‑du‑Nord for his speech. The group PolyRemembers has some concerns about Bill C‑21, including the fact that it does not ban assault weapons outright.

How important does he think it is that this be added before the bill is passed?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. We do think that assault weapons are a serious problem.

With all due respect to the government members, I feel like they are slow learners. Two years ago, they learned that they needed to ban assault weapons, but they did not know how, so they drew up a list of about 1,800 weapons, as I said earlier. That is a step in the right direction. I cannot say it is a misstep, but we would like them to learn a little faster.

We are suggesting that the government clearly describe what an assault weapon is, and then ban that. That would save us a lot of discussion and enable us to move faster and prevent gun manufacturers from skirting the rules by slightly tweaking the assault weapon models in circulation. There may be better solutions, and I invite my colleagues to propose some.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his brilliant speech.

I would like him to explain why our Liberal colleagues do not support Bill C-279, which seeks to create a list of criminal organizations.

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

Madam Speaker, that is another excellent question from an excellent colleague. I thank him for it.

The bill that I introduced, Bill C‑279, says that we need to do something not only about guns but also about those who use them. It seeks to create a registry of criminal organizations, like the one we have for terrorist entities, in order to crack down on organized crime and eliminate it altogether.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Humber River—Black Creek.

If we go back to 2009 and compared it with today, what we will find is that there has been a substantial increase of 81% in violent offences involving guns in a relatively short period of time. We should all be concerned about that. This piece of legislation would continue to move us forward. It is an issue the government has been familiar with for a number of years. In fact, one only needs to take a look at the other pieces of legislation we have brought forward and our budgetary motions and measures to deal with the issue of gun violence.

Canadians as a whole are concerned. It has been estimated that getting close to 50% are concerned about gun violence and what impact it is having on our communities. As a government, not only have we taken a look at legislative measures, which we are talking about today in Bill C-21, but we have also taken other actions, actions that have led to restrictions on some types of assault weapons and actions such as supporting Canada's border control.

We often hear members of all political stripes talk about the smuggling of weapons into Canada from the United States. That is something we take very seriously, unlike Stephen Harper, who cut back on agents at our border.

[An hon. member]

Blame Harper.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, yes, let us assert blame where it is to be asserted in this situation. We are a government that has supported our border agents, recognizing how important that is.

There is a different mentality in the United States versus Canada. Consider the number of mass shootings with more than one victim. They take place virtually every day in the United States. In fact, some of the numbers shared with me indicate that there are well over 200 cases of mass shootings in the United States already where there have been two or more victims. It is a totally different mentality.

One thing that makes us feel good about being here in Canada is that we understand and appreciate the importance of having safe communities and the role, which we see day in and day out in the United States, that weapons have in our communities.

We are talking about issues such as gang activities, and literally tens of millions of dollars, going into over $200 million, have been invested through budgetary measures to deal with gangs. This is not to mention the other additional resources that the government, through infrastructure projects and through working with different levels of government, has been able to put into place, with programs aimed at reducing crime in our communities, especially with an emphasis on gun-related crimes.

Bill C-21, I believe, is legislation that has a wide level of support from the public from coast to coast to coast. We might hear a great deal about gun crimes in some of our major cities, but I do not believe it is just limited to our major cities.

That is one of the reasons that the approach the government is taking today in Bill C-21 is the right approach. We see that in the support the legislation is receiving. The New Democrats are supporting the legislation. I understand that the Green Party is supporting the legislation. The Bloc party is supporting the legislation too. However, it is no surprise that the Conservative Party is not supporting the legislation.

That is why I posed a question to my friends in the Bloc earlier today. Their first speaker talked about how important it is that we get this legislation passed. She has been waiting for it for a number of years already, yet as we have witnessed over the last number of months, the Conservative Party, the official opposition, has taken the approach that legislation is not to pass inside the House of Commons as much as possible, and it will put up barriers to prevent that from taking place.

At times, the Bloc members have already recognized this, because there have been times when they supported time allocation. However, today, the Bloc party did not support the need for it, knowing full well, as members will find in the next number of hours of debate, that Conservative after Conservative will stand up in opposition to Bill C-21. As they have demonstrated on other pieces of legislation, the Conservatives will continue not only to put up speakers but to also move amendments.

[An hon. member]

That's our job.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as the member opposite says, that is their job as opposition. That is right. To a certain degree, though, there is also an obligation for members of the official opposition to actually work as parliamentarians and recognize that if they do not want time allocation on all things, they have to at least recognize that eventually legislation has to pass and go to the next stage.

A member from the Green Party posed a question earlier today. If there were a higher sense of co-operation in recognizing that members cannot indefinitely hold up legislation—

[An hon. member]

Yes, they can.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, no, members cannot, because if they do that for every piece of legislation, including budgetary measures, the government will not be able to do anything. As we have recognized in the last mandate given to us, we have to work with opposition members to do the things we want to do, as we are doing.

Fortunately, there is at least one opposition party that has recognized the value of co-operation, contributing to the debate and trying to effect change. That is in fact what Bill C-21 would do. It would provide a safer community for all of us. We talk about the issue of yellow flag and red flag laws through this legislation. Once passed, this will have an immediate impact. It is an aspect of the legislation that many advocates and different stakeholders recognize the value of.

Having a freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns has been called for for a while now. It has taken the government, through consultations, a great deal of effort to make sure that we get the legislation right. It is not about killing the air gun industry. It is recognizing that air guns that replicate real guns do have an impact. A law enforcement officer in an awkward or difficult position has no way of telling what is real and what is not because of the resemblance.

This legislation has been well thought out. There has been a great deal of consultation, and I believe this is reflected by the type of support, minus the Conservative Party, that the legislation is seeing. I would like to think that passing it to committee would enable Canadians to contribute more directly and listen to what the experts say, because I am sure it will be back come fall time for an additional lengthy debate.

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

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

What we just saw was what I would call feigned magnanimity. Quite candidly, this is the most divisive government I have ever seen, and we have the hon. member here waxing eloquently and even pontificating. Seeing as the Pope is coming to Canada, let us call it that. He is pontificating about the need to co-operate in this place, saying everybody should co-operate. There is such a disconnect between his government's words and his government's actions.

He said there has been an 81% in increase in crimes involving guns and said, “It is an issue the government has been familiar with for a number of years.” The government has been in power since 2015, when the Nur decision, which struck down the mandatory minimums in section 95, was decided, yet we have all of this rhetoric.

When will the government start cracking down on illegal guns, and why is that not in Bill C-21?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government, virtually from day one, has been taking budgetary and legislative actions to make our communities safer, and we will continue to do so. Bill C-21 is yet another legislative measure that would have a profoundly positive impact, and I can cite it specifically. From the selling and purchasing of handguns to the idea of the yellow flag and red flag laws, these are issues that will provide a higher sense of security in our communities. The Conservatives will have to justify to these communities why they oppose that.

In terms of their overall behaviour with regard to all legislation, even legislation they support, they will go out of their way to filibuster in order to fill time and force the government to—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to the democrat and parliamentarian in my colleague and ask him whether he is not a bit embarrassed about the sad spectacle Canadians have been seeing in the House over the past several months. I am talking about the constant stream of closure motions on essential bills that will change Canadians' lives.

Since he has served in the House in previous Parliaments and has even served in provincial legislatures, is my colleague not a little upset about the absolutely degrading spectacle we have been seeing here in recent months?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, I sat almost exactly where the member opposite is sitting in the third party, and even in the third party, I made it very clear that at times there is a need to bring in time allocation. When we do not have any sense of co-operation coming from opposition parties, we have to bring in time allocation as a tool. It is unfortunate.

It would be wonderful if there was more of a consensus on the programming that takes place so that it allows for legislation or opposition days. We see that today on private members' bills, we see that today on opposition day motions and we see that through emergency debates. There are limitations. It means that for the bills that are really controversial, we can maybe have more debate time, and for the bills that are not as controversial that everyone supports, maybe we do not need as much debate time. We need to recognize that there is only so much time in a day, in a week and in a year, and that is something the Conservatives fail to recognize.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, during the 2019 election, the member's party promised to make sure that the CBSA had the resources it needed to detect and stop the flow of weapons at our borders.

Why has the Liberal government not restored the more than 1,000 positions cut by previous Conservative governments, which are required to stop the flow of weapons at the Canada-U.S. border?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we realized that the Stephen Harper government did in fact make serious cuts, and as a result, it weakened our borders. We have invested heavily in borders virtually from the very beginning, recognizing that illegal weapons are a very serious issue. We will continue to look at ways to minimize illegal weapons coming into Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise in this House today, especially following my illustrious colleague, who never seems to run out of words and manages to fill the time slot all the time.

I represent a riding that, like many others in a large urban centre like Toronto, has a tendency to have a lot of violence, and the majority of that violence is gun violence, so I am very pleased that Bill C-21 is on the table.

The part that bothers me about Bill C-21 is the fact that we will not get it to committee and back before the House rises. I, and some of my colleagues, would have been more than happy to remain until the middle of July or the end of July to pass this bill, but it takes consent to do that, which was not available. We will get the bill as far as we can in this session, and as soon as we come back in the fall, I hope this will be the first item the committee deals with, understanding its importance. I wonder how many more lives could have been saved had we been able to get the bill through, but there are a lot of things that governments do, and there is a lot of legislation that is important. I am glad that we finally got as far as we have. Let us hit the ball home and get this through committee and back to the House.

We have a very close relationship with our neighbours to the south. Clearly, whenever we see what is going on there, we know it is going to happen here. It is just the way it is. We are a smaller country, and these things tend to be exposed later, but we follow the U.S. in so many ways.

I think I speak for all of us as parliamentarians when I say that we are sick and tired of turning on the news and feeling heartbroken at yet another act of gun violence. The common response from all of us as elected officials is to send our thoughts and prayers. However, as time goes on and these instances of violence continue to occur, the overwhelming response is that thoughts and prayers accomplish nothing and that we need action. I have been hearing this in my community for the 30 years that I have been elected to office, and several members of my own family have been victims of gun violence. We have been waiting and pushing and asking when we are going to get tougher on illegal handguns.

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

Last Sunday afternoon, there were four separate incidents of gun violence. Thank God, none of it was in my riding, which is always my first thought, selfish as it is. It was in other parts of our city, but there is a lot of it. This bill is just one more tool that we have in the tool box. It will not do everything we want it to do, but at least it tries to address the number of guns that are flowing. There was a shooting yesterday from a car window, which missed the person evidently, but again, this is becoming just like in the U.S. Whatever we can do as parliamentarians here, and whatever our government has the courage to move forward on to try to tackle this issue, is what we are elected to do. We are elected to deal with the tough issues, and this is one of them.

I am very proud of the government, and while some may have wanted this legislation later, I would have liked to see it sooner. I am tired of responding with thoughts and prayers, of saying “I feel sorry for you.” I am sorry for the families who have gone through this and yes, I will do what I can, but we do not do enough. Frankly, I do not know what is enough, but this is at least another step forward, which is why I wanted to make sure I had an opportunity to say some words today.

Since 2015, when our Liberal government came in, we have banned AR-15s and 1,500 models of assault-style firearms. These kinds of weapons do not belong in the homes or on the streets of this country, or any country, unless they are in a war, as in Russia or in Ukraine, but there is no reason for them to be needed on the streets of this country of ours.

Cracking down on illegal trafficking by investing in law enforcement and enhanced border security is another key part of it, because it seems that no matter how much more security we get at the borders, somehow the guns are getting smuggled in. They are coming from somewhere. We are not manufacturing all of these handguns here, so they are coming across borders and we are not doing enough to prevent that from happening. I know we have put millions more into CBSA, and here and there, but it never seems to be enough. This is, again, one more step to try to decrease the number of guns on our streets.

The other issue is, why do we have so much gang violence? In my riding, as in others, I deal with a lot of families that have had tremendous trouble, and we need to look at the root cause of why they would pick up a gun and decide to take somebody else's life. In a round-table session I had a few years ago with young men and women, I questioned them and said, “You know who these people are on the street. Why would you not discourage them from using a gun?” They said, “Why? You don't value my life, so I don't value your life.” I never forgot that statement, because I do value their life, but they do not seem to think that we as a society value their lives. That is important because people need to understand that every life is valuable. Every life matters to all of us, but to think “I don't care about you because you don't care about me” leaves a real challenge.

Since I had that conversation, I have gone out of my way, to the extent possible, as an elected official to make sure that the people in my riding and everywhere else know that we do care and we are trying to help them, but they have to help themselves. This is not a one-way street, where we are out doing everything for them and they are waiting to see what we are going to give them. It takes all of us working together. If people are having issues, they should talk to somebody, reach out and get the help they need, just not think that their life does not matter.

The ability to trace guns is another issue we have talked about for some time, looking at how to better identify where those guns have come from. The red flag laws are another important thing that should have been on the books a long time ago. It is really important.

I have to thank my staff for putting a speech together that somehow I never got to.

I am proud that the government is doing this. We all need to work harder at decreasing gun violence in a variety of ways. This is one more tool in the tool box, and we owe it to the people who have sent us here to reflect their views and thoughts and do what is necessary to decrease gun violence. I hope we get this to committee soon, make some changes and improvements to it and move forward together on this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about military-style assault rifles. Could she provide me with the definition of what a military-style assault rifle is? She mentioned the AR-15s, which were banned by the order in council of May 1, 2020. Could the member please let the House know how many crimes have been committed in the history of Canada with AR-15s?

The member talked about reducing gun violence. We have 100% agreement in the House that we all want to reduce gun violence. Could she tell me about the metrics within Bill C-21, specifically around handguns, that are going to do that, considering that all restricted firearms and handguns are registered so that the police are able to track exactly how many crimes have been committed? How many crimes have been committed with legal handguns?

Finally, the member talked about red flag laws. Would she admit that we currently have red flag laws in our legislation that help prevent this?

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, whatever happens to the south of us ends up being duplicated here in Canada, whether it is a month later, six months later or two years later. When we look at the killings and those mass shootings in the schools, when there are 19 babies killed, those were not done with a handgun. We have already banned some of those, but the handguns we are talking about are the illegal handguns.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about people needing to take responsibility when referring to gang violence, about people helping themselves and about people caring.

I want to point to something very specific, indigenous women. Thousands have gone missing and been murdered. They are 12 times more likely to experience violence. We know all the stats. They are 4.5 times more likely to go missing or be murdered. This is not a feeling. This is an actual genocide that is occurring in this country. I found it a little out of touch and was a little put off by this kind of history, which the member acknowledged, of incremental justice, particularly when we are talking about femicide, which is most often experienced by indigenous women.

Why does the hon. member continue to have those views, knowing that her government has performed incremental justice that has cost the lives of indigenous women? I found it a bit callous and insensitive, and certainly not consistent with research and facts, and actually with positions that her own government—

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

I have to give the hon. member the opportunity to answer.

The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the continued great work that the member is doing as a member of Parliament.

I was very focused on so many people in my particular riding who have been asking for such a long period of time for more to be done to eliminate handguns in our communities. If we did an analysis, we would probably find that one in four is carrying a gun in my riding of Humber River—Black Creek. That is very frightening. People are asking for action.

In the same way, we are moving forward and taking more action to protect more indigenous women, as well as all women in Canada. Indigenous women have certainly experienced a lot of sorrow and violence, and we are looking at trying to eliminate that as well.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her testimony, knowing that members of her family have been affected by gun violence. The fact is that there are one million handguns circulating in Canada. That number increases by 55,000 every year.

What are my colleague's thoughts on the Bloc Québécois's proposal to create an optional handgun buyback program?

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

Madam Speaker, when it gets referred to committee in the immediate future, there will be an opportunity at the committee level to discuss all the options on the table, including the issue of buyback.

Whatever we can do to get guns off the street is something I am very supportive of.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always grateful to stand up and represent my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. However, in this case, I am representing all legal firearms owners, our law enforcement, our military, our security forces around the country and even our Parliamentary Protective Service. I challenge every MP to talk to them and ask their opinions about this bill, as well as to get the opinions of sport shooters, hunters and the vast majority of my constituents in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I am disappointed that we are already curtailing debate on this important bill, especially considering that we have only had seven Conservative MPs speak to it, and that was only because we split our time.

On that note, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

I am going to focus on three key aspects in my speech. Number one is data and facts, number two is openness, transparency and honesty, and finally, number three is respect. The key to all of this, and the key to reducing gun violence in Canada, is education.

Let me speak first to the data and the facts. I asked the previous member speaking to define military-style assault rifles, which is a question I have been asking the government for almost three years now. The definition does not exist. I asked that question in a written submission to the government, and its response was to please check a commissioned report by Hill+Knowlton Strategies. If we read that report, do we know what it says? The government really needs to define what it means by assault rifles or military-style assault rifles. A definition still does not exist, and that adds to the confusion so many Canadians face when we are trying to deal with the important issue of reducing gun violence across Canada.

I am going to go back to the original, key piece of legislation in the past couple of years. It was from the last Parliament around the order in council that banned 1,500 so-called military-style assault rifles. In that document, there was actually no definition or criteria for what determines or establishes what is a military-style assault rifle. When I asked what criteria were used, I was told there were none.

The government used three principles. Number one is that the guns are semi-automatic in nature, with a high sustained rate of fire. That statement is a contradiction. If it is semi-automatic, the rate of fire is controlled by the shooter and not by the firearm, so whether someone has a slow finger or a fast finger determines whether a firearm should be prohibited or not. It does not even make logical sense.

The second principle the government used is that the firearms are of modern design. I asked what was meant by modern design. That means post-World War II. If the firearm was designed post the Second World War, we should be banning it.

Number three is that they exist in large quantities in Canada. Again, this does not pass the common sense test. Let us take firearm x as an example. There are 100,000 of them in Canada that have been used in zero gun crimes. Let us ban it. With firearm z, let us say there are only 10 of them in Canada and all 10 have been used in firearms crimes. It is good to go and will not be banned. Again, there is no logic behind the principles, and there are no criteria to determine that list.

I have been asking for evidence and data that support any of the firearms legislation the current Liberal government has brought forward. I submitted a written question to the government asking for any evidence or metrics behind how the government thinks any of this legislation is actually going to reduce gun violence. I received a response on January 29, 2020, that would only take me 30 seconds to read out. There is no evidence or metrics on how this is going to reduce gun violence in Canada.

The member for Winnipeg North stood and said that this has been broadly consulted on. It has not been consulted on in my riding. In the previous Parliament, the minister of public safety at the time came to my community and talked about Bill C-71 from the 42nd Parliament. I can guarantee he walked out of there and there was not a single person who talked to the minister during that consultation session who supported Bill C-71.

I will go back to my point around data. Where is the data that shows legal firearms owners are responsible for gun crime in Canada? I talked about education. I spent 25 years in uniform carrying all sorts of restricted and prohibited firearms, because I could as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. I was an infantry officer. I walked around with a fully automatic firearm. That is what assault weapons are: fully automatic. They have been banned in Canada since 1977. During my last two deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, I walked around everywhere with a handgun. Handguns do not kill people; people kill people.

To get to the point about education, despite all that, when I got out of uniform and became a civilian, I had to get a possession and acquisition licence and a restricted possession and acquisition licence, a PAL and an RPAL, in order to potentially buy a firearm or a restricted firearm. Those courses are extensive. Did I learn a lot about safety on those specific firearms? No. I was safe and had no problem passing the practical portions of both of those courses, but I did learn a lot about our laws. As I suggested in the last Parliament, it would benefit every member who wants to sit here and debate firearms legislation to do the PAL or the RPAL course because it would teach them a lot about our very restrictive firearms laws that currently exist in Canada.

To continue on education, when I was door knocking in 2019, I heard similar concerns that have been addressed by other members during the debate about why anybody would need that firearm. I was shown a picture from a Cabela's magazine or some other magazine that someone had received in the mail, and they asked me why anybody would need that. I looked at it and compared it with another firearm in the brochure. I pointed to the firearm that they thought was so scary and said I would walk 200 metres down the street and stand there. They could shoot at me all they wanted and I would not even move.

I asked if another firearm was okay, and they said yes. It was just a hunting rifle. I said that if I stood another few hundred metres away, as soon as someone started shooting at me with that firearm, I would take cover. Again, it is the lack of education in understanding firearms. Just because they look scary does not mean they are more dangerous. It is based on their capabilities and criteria.

I asked the minister, when he first introduced Bill C-21 in the House last week, about handguns in particular. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, handguns are restricted and they are registered. I asked a simple question about how easy it is for law enforcement to track how many gun crimes in Canada have been committed by legal firearms owners with legal handguns. He refused to answer that question. It was the same question I had asked his officials the week prior during the technical briefing. Again, I ask that they please get us the data. It would help so much.

I would point out that restricted firearms owners are the most law-abiding demographic in Canada. In fact, they are three times less likely to commit a crime than the average Canadian. I would argue, it is even less likely than that for the majority of the Liberal caucus.

Openness and transparency are key around all of this. Let us debate this. Everybody wants to reduce gun violence in Canada, but we need to do that based on data, based on evidence and based on statistics. Law enforcement demands this. One of the things that a lot of Canadians do not understand is that our law enforcement and security forces depend on these restricted firearms for their own safety and training. They do not get the time on the range to do this, so a lot of legal firearms owners are in law enforcement who own these firearms on their own. I get that Bill C-21, specifically on handguns, says that they would still be able to own them, but let us remove the politicization around this and talk about what is important to solve this.

My final point is on respect and trust. Let us respect parliamentarians in the House, let us respect legal firearms owners and, most of all, let us respect Canadians by talking about the real key facts.

In conclusion, there are data and facts, openness and transparency, and respect and trust. Let us educate Canadians on the root causes of gun violence in Canada, i.e., crime, drugs, the illegal trafficking of firearms and, most importantly, poverty instead of going after law-abiding Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on some of the closing comments from the member. He said that we should respect parliamentarians, respect the process and respect Parliament. We would not know that, coming from the way the member and his colleagues have been acting in the House over the past several months. They are refusing to let the bills they supported in their election platform go through the House.

The member talked about the limited amount of time people have had to speak to the bill. Has he had the opportunity to reflect on how much more time he would have had if the Conservatives had not been playing procedural games and delaying bills such as the fall economic statement to provide more supports to Canadians? Had they actually let that stuff go through as it should have, fairly easily, he would have had so much more time to speak to this and other bills that the Conservatives are genuinely passionate about.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not going to even provide a dignified response to that. The fact of the matter is that every member of Parliament should be able to speak to every bill at every stage, if it means something to their constituents. That is why we are here: to represent our constituents, whether we are Conservative members of Parliament or Liberal backbenchers. It would be nice if that member or the member for Winnipeg North would let somebody else in the Liberal caucus speak.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. What is the member implying when he says that I am not allowing other people to speak? Is he suggesting that I am suspending other people's democratic opportunities? He is implying that I am suppressing other people's ability to speak—

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

Indeed, we should not, in any way, make those kinds of accusations. I would invite the hon. member to perhaps reflect on his comments. We should not be assigning intentions to other members. I would really appreciate it if the hon. member would withdraw the comment.

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

Madam Speaker, I withdraw that comment.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He knows I love him. We were on a 12-day mission together not long ago and I had a great time. We had some great discussions, but we could not get away from debating guns. We disagree, and that is just the way it is.

I would like to know what he thinks about the Bloc Québécois's proposal to create a list of groups in our cities that stir up trouble with shootings all over the place. We would like to have a list of these groups, like the one we already have for terrorist organizations.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have a great deal of respect for him.

I have no issues with lists of criminal organizations right across this country. The challenge I have in my riding, as in a lot of rural ridings, is how we quantify that and get down to it, etc. I have no issues with criminal organizations being listed. I think that is important information that law enforcement should have if it can help, because I think it really gets to the root causes of gun violence in Canada: illegal crimes and gangs. Let us fix that.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot in my colleague's speech I would disagree with. I spent a number of years chairing a public safety task force in the city of Calgary talking about guns, gangs and gun violence. Also, I was a member of the police commission in Calgary. My colleague talked about data and using data on gun crimes. In western Canada, in Calgary, it was identified that the majority of guns used in crimes were obtained through legal means: through legal purchases and ownership.

I would like to ask my colleague this. Knowing that data point, what can we do to make sure that those legally obtained guns are not used in a crime? Those were the majority of the guns in the data provided by the Calgary Police Service last year at the Calgary police commission. What can we do to prevent that from happening? What would he want to see in this or other bills to make sure that guns and gun owners' rights are—

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

I have to give the hon. member the opportunity to answer. The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

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

Madam Speaker, as my first question, let us provide that data. I would love to see it. Please email me that data, because that data has not been tabled. I have been asking for the government to table any data around firearms crime that has been committed by legal firearms owners or by legal firearms, but the government has refused to table it and bring it forward.

I guess the best bet, going back to a previous speech and the amendment, which is what we are actually debating here, would be to refer this whole study to the committee of public safety and deal with it there. Then we can bring back legislation that actually makes sense and is informed, rather than being based just on political—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

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

Madam Speaker, right off the bat, I want to point out that our Conservative team was willing to split this bill so that the House could swiftly pass the clauses on which we all agree. There are parts that we still need to debate, but we were prepared to make sure that the other elements could quickly proceed. We would have immediately sent on to the committee stage the elements of Bill C-21 that are focused on protecting potential victims of firearms crime and tightening up laws that address firearms smuggling. Those elements would have also included red flag provisions to allow law enforcement to remove firearms from dangerous domestic situations more quickly and to allow more severe penalties for criminals smuggling guns.

It was a reasonable proposal and it was disappointing that the government did not accept the offer. As with all firearms-related legislation, the government is far too comfortable with labelling those who disagree with it as firearms lobbyists. It is more than willing to disparage us and law-abiding firearms owners than to propose legislation that fixes the root issue of firearms violence. In the 2019 election, the Liberals tried to scare people into voting for them in our riding by sending out a brochure with firearms on it. It did not work, and they got 12% of the vote. The Liberals once again tried to scare people in the 2021 election, and the result was the same:12% of the vote.

The good people of Westman are not buying what the Liberals are trying to sell. A couple of years ago, I took my RPAL, my restricted possession and acquisition licence, and went for training in the basement of the late Don Teale. Like hundreds if not thousands before me, I sat in his makeshift classroom in his home in Brandon with a dozen or so Westman residents who had signed up to take their firearms training. As I walked into the room, I could tell that a few of the other students were slightly perplexed about why I was taking the safety training with them.

Not long afterward, Don, who was a plain-spoken and straight-shooting veteran, told them how happy he was that a sitting member of Parliament was educating himself for the firearms act. Don was right. I was not in his basement because I wanted to purchase a firearm; I took the training to get a better idea of the rigorous process that Canadians must go through before they can get a firearms licence.

As a lot of MPs might know, there was a movement a couple of years ago from law-abiding firearms owners urging legislators to get their PAL or their RPAL. They were tired of politicians getting up and speaking about the firearms act without ever reading or understanding it. They were upset that too many are quick to disparage firearms owners without understanding the law or the process.

There is no evidence to justify many changes found in the Liberals' firearms legislation. In fact, they are only further burdening law-abiding firearms owners, rather than actually going after the people who commit the crimes. I, for one, would prefer that our law enforcement agencies and our Government of Canada spend their time, energy and resources in cracking down on gangs and criminals.

Since the Liberals announced Bill C-21, I have received countless emails from law-abiding firearms owners who feel that once again the government is using them as a scapegoat instead of tackling the root of firearms violence in Canada. I have heard from retired law enforcement officers, veterans, competitive sport shooters and everyday Canadians who are tired of being blamed and shamed by the Liberal government. They are fed up with the Minister of Public Safety's gaslighting.

To give just one example, the minister said, “Bill C-21 doesn't target law-abiding gun owners, it targets handgun violence, it targets organized crime.” Of course this bill targets law-abiding firearms owners. Suggesting it does not is an insult to the intelligence of those who have been following this debate. I am looking forward to watching the deputy minister appear at the public safety committee to inform the MPs that we have all just misunderstood the minister once again.

The reason firearms businesses have run out of stock is that as soon as this bill was announced, everyone with an RPAL went out to purchase a handgun before the freeze takes effect. Anyone who tries to phone the RCMP firearms centre right now will sit on hold for hours, as everyone is trying to purchase or transfer a firearm right now. How could the Minister of Public Safety go on national television and say something so erroneous? Does he actually believe what he is saying? He knows perfectly well that Bill C-21 is going to prevent Canada's RPAL holders from ever purchasing a handgun once this legislation passes.

The truth of the matter is that the Liberal government decided to target law-abiding firearms owners from the moment it came into office. The Liberals repealed various elements of the common sense firearms act that my colleague just talked about, Bill C-71. They deleted the sensible change of introducing an automatic authorization to transport firearms and they then removed any oversight of the classification of firearms.

Let us fast-forward to 2020, when the Liberals reclassified hundreds of firearms as “prohibited”. With the stroke of a pen, they made millions of firearms illegal to use in Canada. Some of these firearms have been in people's possession for decades, and now the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase them so they can be destroyed.

If those hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on policing, social programs or literally anything, there would be a much better chance of reducing crime. Once again the government has failed to make a serious case for one of its bills, and in doing so, it is unnecessarily going after millions of law-abiding firearms owners who have done everything by the book.

According to Brian Sauvé, president of the National Police Federation, “it is the experience of law enforcement that most of these guns are illegally obtained,” and I would add, “from the United States”.

As our Conservative shadow minister of public safety said in her speech, the committee recently studied guns and gangs and had a very robust debate. It had police and crime experts appear, and not one recommendation in its report was to ban handguns. That is because none of the experts, none of the police experts and none of the community anti-gang experts said that banning handguns would be a solution. All of them said that such an approach would not work.

In relation to some questions we just had, the committee heard from the Toronto police that over 85% of handguns used in violent crimes are smuggled in from the United States. From Quebec, Chief Inspector Benoît Dubé said that most firearms linked to crime seized in his province come from the United States. He said, “We need to focus our efforts on the borders between the United States and Canada.” According to Chief Inspector David Bernard from the Montreal city police service, approximately 80% of illegal firearms seized in Quebec have been smuggled in from the United States.

To date, we have seen very little evidence from the government to suggest that law-abiding firearm owners are responsible for the rise in firearm homicides and shootings. What we do have is a gang and organized crime problem in Canada. On a weekly basis, we are hearing about deadly shootings happening across the country. All this violence has led to the tragic loss of too many, and it is having an impact on countless communities and neighbourhoods.

According to the latest Statistics Canada data, there were 8,344 victims of police-reported violent crime in which a handgun was present during the commission of an offence, which is a rate of 29 per 100,000 population. Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, gun crime has gone up steadily each year, and for residents in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and other cities, gun violence is an everyday occurrence.

I have always stood for common sense firearm safety and strong consequences for those who commit firearms offences. If the Liberals had proposed a bill that explicitly focused on guns, gangs and criminals, they would have found a much more receptive audience on this side of the House.

For years, we have been calling on the government to address gun smuggling and improve the ability of border agents to prevent the flow of illegal firearms into Canada. I cannot and will not support legislation that specifically targets law-abiding firearms owners and ignores the root problems of illegal firearms.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the intervention from the member and I could not help but reflect that he was here when the Conservatives were last in power. I realize that part of his argument, as it often is from the Conservatives on gun-related issues, is about cracking down on illegal guns that are coming across the border, but I cannot help but reflect on the previous government. He was part of that government, as he was a member of the Conservative Party when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, and that government actually significantly reduced funding that border services needed in order to crack down on this kind of stuff.

Can the member inform the House how he responded to that when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and he got to sit in a caucus meeting with him? Did he often and routinely raise the issue that the government of the day should not be removing money needed by border operations in order to crack down on this illegal activity?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, as ill-informed as it might be.

I just wanted to say, though, that for the last three elections, if he has been paying any attention at all, this side of the House has been calling for greater efforts to stop smuggling guns into Canada. All of the police chiefs and heads of police in the provinces that I just spoke of in my speech—and I know he was listening to it, because that was what he was referencing—show us that 80% to 85% of these crimes are caused by illegal guns that have been smuggled into the country, and that is where our focus should be. That is where the dollars can be spent the best to try to prevent the unconscionable street crime that we are seeing.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Brandon—Souris on his speech, and I have a message for him from the member for Jonquière, who wants to congratulate him on his hard work.

In Bill C‑21, the government opted to include a list of prohibited assault weapons, specifying models. Our colleague from Rivière-du-Nord suggested a completely different approach, which is to precisely define what constitutes an assault weapon so that weapons can be prohibited if they meet the criteria in the definition, not just if they are a certain model. What does my colleague from Brandon—Souris think of that?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Jonquière for his compliments on my abilities.

This is exactly the point that my colleague was just trying to make: The government has never come up with a definition of an assault rifle. My colleague, as we know, has gone to great lengths to try to find that in all of the debates and in all of the information that is available today. The government cannot even define it for us.

That is why this legislation is such a flawed piece of work. It needs to go to the public safety committee so that it can come back, as was indicated by the member and my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound here, with recommendations that will really help fix the problem, instead of blaming law-abiding firearms owners.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the member for Brandon—Souris speak and I have enjoyed my conversations with him as we have travelled across the country back and forth.

He said that the Conservatives are anti-crime, and I believe that, but there is a question that perplexes me. He knows, as he has been in the House for a long time, that when the Harper government was in power, it destroyed, gutted, the crime prevention programs right across the country.

In British Columbia, we had a very active crime prevention sector. It was gutted and eliminated, and it does not make sense, because for every dollar we invest in crime prevention, we save $6 in policing costs, in court costs and in jail costs. Putting in place effective crime prevention strategies and funding them adequately actually makes a great deal of sense.

Why did the Conservatives do that? Why did they gut crime prevention programs when we know they are very cost-effective and help to reduce crime?

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

Madam Speaker, I respect my colleague as well. We have had many of those good conversations.

I want to say that it is not the registration of a firearm but the licencing of it that will help prevent crimes. The only difference is that firearms should be licensed according to their function, not their form.

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

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, today, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Before I start my speech, I want to acknowledge that today is June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day. It is a day that I recognize with a lot of love because of my beautiful granny. She went to residential school in Lejac between the ages of four and 16, and her strength and integrity keep our family strong. I also want to acknowledge my Auntie Dean from Stellat’en First Nation. Her traditional name is Hatix-Ka’wah, which means peace within the frame of a house. Because of the day, I wanted to acknowledge her as the lead of our family before I started.

I am here specifically to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments in regard to firearms. I want to start by thanking the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file. It is not an easy one, and these discussions are always rife with conflict as we try to navigate our way around this issue. I will say that I am ready to support this bill getting to committee. I also recognize that I still have a lot of questions, and I am hoping the committee will be able to work through some of those questions to get me answers.

I represent a rural riding. I grew up in a household where several of my family members were legal gun owners. They followed the rules, and I was taught gun safety at a very young age as a matter of respect. I grew up eating wild meat, and hunting was a significant part of my family's life.

I have met with many legal gun owners in my riding who have talked about the frustration they feel about the rules always focusing on them, rather than addressing some of their legitimate concerns about illegal guns and how they get into our communities. That is an important part of our conversation today, and it should continue to be. Those conversations do concern me greatly. My riding also has a high level of people retiring from the military who maintain their skills as a commitment to their years of service. It is important for us all to recognize those who use firearms to protect and serve our communities.

I have also heard from constituents who are very, very concerned about gun violence in their communities and in our region. There have been, sadly, several examples in my riding over the past few years, which has resulted in my office receiving more concerns about gun safety than we have ever seen before. This is especially concerning when it comes to cases of domestic violence where guns are used. In 2020, 160 women and girls were killed in Canada. One woman or girl is killed every two and a half days in this country. Therefore, as Canadians are seeing an increase in gun violence across our country, I believe that all Canadians do want to see this addressed.

About three years ago, a constituent in my riding invited me to come to the shooting range with him. He wanted to showcase this for me, so I would understand the rules and how he followed them. I agreed so that I could learn more about the realities of these folks living in my region. Of course, he was also a retired service member for the military, and I always take an opportunity to spend time with people who served us, and who served us so well.

The first thing he told me was that I would have to come to his house and ride with him because he could not stop on the way through town to pick me up. The rules in Canada meant that he had to go straight from his home, not stopping for anything else, and go to the range. At his home, he was able to show me the way he stored his guns separate from ammunition, with everything locked away and secured. He also showed me how he transported the guns and how that was done safely.

I learned a lot, and I really appreciated his effort to take that time to educate me. He also shared that he was concerned about the gun violence in Canada and what that did for him as a legal gun owner and as somebody who was really practising safely. He knew of things that had happened across the country, and he knew that people were more fearful.

These are important conversations to have, especially at that community level where we can have those open conversations and discussions about how we can come together. My constituent did feel that the majority of gun owners followed the rules very carefully, but he was also concerned that there are legal gun owners who do not always follow the rules, and he wanted to make sure that those issues were addressed. Of course, he was also very concerned about the fact that we do have illegal guns in this country, and those folks can really make a bad name for people who are doing their best to be safe.

The facts are that, in Canada between 2019 and 2020, there were notable increases in rates of firearm-related violent crimes being reported, especially in places like southern rural British Columbia, which had an increase of 34%; the northern rural part of Ontario, which increased by 32%; rural Alberta, which increased by 32% in the north and 31% in the south; the Northwest Territories, which saw a 23% increase; and Nova Scotia, which increased by 22%. Handguns were the most serious weapon present in most firearm-related violent crimes.

Over my seven years here, I have heard two things repeatedly from constituents: one is that we need to look at gun policy in Canada, focussing on illegal guns and how they get to our country; and two is that we need more education in Canada about the strong rules that we do have and how they work. I believe these are important areas to discuss.

I have also heard a lot on this bill specifically about concerns from the airsoft community that Bill C-21 would prohibit imports, exports, sales and transfers of all replica firearms, which would include airsoft guns that are designed or intended to look exactly like or resemble a real firearm.

This does concern me, because there is the safety issue on the one side that we should consider carefully. We have heard stories of people using these to emulate real guns, and that is a safety concern for all people who are involved in that situation. We also hear the other side, and that it will impact paintball retailers and facilities, as most rely on income from both airsoft and paintball use.

I understand that in this country there are very few regulations, and I think it is something we need to look at. We have heard from this sector that they have not been meaningfully consulted. We want to make sure that when we further the discussions, we could address that.

I have learned that people have successfully altered airsoft weapons to hold real ammunition, and this really surprised me. I had no idea that that was even possible. Unfortunately it is, and it is a growing concern. We need to work with this sector to make sure that we look at the realities they are facing, and make sure the solution is workable, so they can continue their practice and not have a huge impact on their income. However, we also need to make sure the safety of Canadians is addressed.

Illegal guns are a huge concern for my constituents, as I mentioned earlier. This bill does not offer what I would like to see on measures for gun smuggling. I represent 19 Wing Comox. Its crews do tremendous work on our coastline to keep our community safe. They have found people trying to ship things illegally across our borders, whether it be guns or drugs, and they have stopped that. I really appreciate their work, but I am concerned there is not going to be the amount of support needed to continue that work and to expand that work.

We know that this bill would increase the maximum penalty for trafficking, smuggling and other firearms offences from 10 years to 14 years. It would require the commissioner of firearms to give the minister an annual report. It would allow proactive information sharing between the RCMP and local law enforcement agencies for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting firearm trafficking offences, and it would also provide eligibility for wiretapping on additional Criminal Code firearms offences.

What it does not include in a meaningful way is more support for the Canada Border Services Agency. We know that under the previous Conservative government, over 1,000 positions were cut. Under the Liberal government, some of those folks are back, but definitely not the number that is required to actually address the guns that are being smuggled into our country illegally.

We also know, as our leader wrote to the Prime Minister in 2018, that we need to see more changes within our policies in this country to support the root causes of gun violence in some of the more vulnerable communities. We need to address things such as poverty. I was at an event just a few days ago in my community, and I was very surprised by how many people talked to me about the increasing homeless population. They spoke of how more and more people are really struggling to make ends meet and how often they are going towards violence because they cannot feed themselves. They are not safe in their own area.

We need to make sure there are supports provided to our communities to address these key issues because the more poverty grows, and the more people are disenfranchised, the more violence is the result. We need to look at these things as correlating numbers.

I am here to discuss this. I hope that all of us in the House can have a meaningful conversation, because these things are important to our communities, and if we do not address them in an open and transparent way, it will lead to more conflict.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I was particularly interested in my colleague's comments on airsoft guns and the impact on that industry. It is an issue in my riding. I believe this is absolutely a good bill, but with airsoft guns, quite frankly, it overreaches. The problem is this: An airsoft gun that is a replica of a gun that is not banned would be banned, so we would be banning toys.

Does my hon. colleague have any concerns about that? Does she feel this is something that could be addressed through amendments at committee?

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

Madam Speaker, I have spent a lot of time with the member in committee, and I always appreciate his feedback and his thoughts. In this case, I completely agree with him. These are very important questions because we know there are a lot of industries that use airsoft, and it is a toy. It is something people play with, but if it is used in the wrong hands, either changed so it can actually shoot or used to replicate something else, that is concerning.

We have to look to our committee to do the work to make sure we offer a workable solution, so we would not only be protecting the industry but also making sure we are keeping our communities safe at the same time. That is why it is so important that we come together on the bill and have meaningful dialogue. It is because these are life-and-death situations, in some cases, both in terms of economics and in terms of safety.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-21. I am going to try to deal with a number of complex issues in a short amount of time and hope it works.

It relates to Bill C-21, and that is the use of firearms. I want to comment on some of the discussion during question period about the Portapique shootings. I think it is important to reflect on what I take away from the news media at this time, when I have a moment to say it. There is no chance of interrupting question period to put it into perspective.

As a Nova Scotian originally, I was devastated, as we all were, by the shootings at Portapique. The RCMP officer who was killed, Heidi Stevenson, was a friend of mine and I know her mother well.

It was awful to watch what happened. We will see what the Mass Casualty Commission produces as a result, but it is pretty clear to me, and I want to speak clearly to this, that the RCMP in Nova Scotia failed the public badly. I know a commission is looking at this, but the RCMP had information that was not shared. It failed to put out a warning and 22 people were killed. I know this inquiry is very important to all the families who lost loved ones.

There appears to me to have been an uncalled-for assumption by some members in question period, who put into question the integrity of the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister's Office. I am not an apologist for the Liberals, but I thought that was not what the evidence revealed. When I look at the CBC reports of what they found out, it appears to me that in the aftermath of the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP was all too quick to try to obscure facts from the public, rather than reveal them.

It appears to me that the RCMP commissioner, Brenda Lucki, provided more transparency and provided real information. If anyone in PMO instructed her anything, it seems to me that it would have been to tell everybody what has happened and just be transparent. I am very concerned that we let any false rumours or assumptions to besmirch the reputations of others, including Brenda Lucki, be spread in this place.

It appears to me, as in a number of other shooting incidents, that sometimes the police get it wrong. They did not move in Uvalde, Texas, when they should have, to save those children. There is a common denominator that I discern, which is that when the RCMP is slow to move or the police are slow to move, it is because the people they would have to deal with are heavily armed. I do not find the police slow to move against unarmed protesters. I do not find the police slow to move against indigenous people. However, they delay when they are at risk for their own safety, all too often. It is not always, but all too often.

In the case of the Nova Scotia shooter, we know his name. I do not want to repeat it, because of the crimes he committed. However, he was well known to the RCMP and in the early hours after the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP, not the commissioner, put out false statements that he was not known to them. He was known personally to them. They had warnings about him.

This goes to make the bridge and the connection to Bill C-21. This goes to a number of the provisions of Bill C-21 that, if Bill C-21 had been law at that time, could have saved lives. The neighbours of the multiple shooter in Nova Scotia, and we can just call him the evil dentist for the time being, reported him to the RCMP on numerous occasions, but no action was taken. Neighbours were so frightened of him that they literally sold their dream home and moved away, yet nothing was done to even conduct a search of the property or even to inquire why he is buying a car that looks just like an RCMP vehicle. Why does he dress up like an RCMP officer? These details were known in the community, and a number of them were reported to law enforcement authorities.

Could this bill have made a difference? I think it could have, but only if the RCMP or local police are prepared to use the information that comes to them. That is why one of the provisions in this bill that I particularly like is the ability to seek an ex parte motion on the strength of concerns from people who are concerned that some person may be threatening others, not just with firearms, by the way, but with crossbows or with explosive substances. This is really important. This is found under “Application for emergency prohibition order” in clause 4 of this bill, which would amend section 110 of the Firearms Act.

It is really important that we recognize what an ex parte order is. That means that people can go to the court without notifying the person they are scared of that they are going to court, and there can be an emergency search and seizure without a warrant. This violates every instinct of my being, searches without warrants, because I am a civil liberties lawyer, but there is a history of violence by people in the community, people we know.

There is a lot about this law that I hope we will have time to study thoroughly, and I want to speak to that. There are the red flag and yellow flag provisions, the ability to go to a judge without fear of retribution from someone who is well armed or who has crossbows. It may be in cases, as we know all too frequently, of intimate partner violence. It may be in cases of the random and reckless killing of others, as in the case of Portapique or the desperately sad case of Lionel Desmond, who killed his wife and mother and kids. He was, of course, suffering from PTSD from his service in our armed forces and did not get the help he needed, even though he had gone to a hospital the day before. There are many and varied circumstances when the presence of firearms in a home makes the difference between life and death, and where the provisions in Bill C-21 would indeed, I hope, save lives.

I want to turn to a process question at this point: Why rush this bill? I am very concerned that we just invoked time allocation on a bill that we had only had before us for debate for three hours. This bill is complex. It has many moving parts. The government itself has changed its views on key aspects of this bill between its version last year, which was also Bill C-21, and its version this year, which is the current Bill C-21. The Liberals changed their minds, and wisely, on the question of voluntary versus mandatory buyback. They changed their minds, wisely, on the question of any jurisdiction other than the federal government regulating guns. Those were wise choices, and this bill has changed in that way.

Bills get better when they are studied. Any attempt to achieve consensus will improve a bill. A decision on the government side that the Conservatives are only going to obstruct and delay and filibuster is entirely a justified conclusion, given conduct so far in this Parliament, but that does not excuse shortening the time for debate, shortening the time for study and shortening the time to try to find consensus in this place, which is possible.

I want to put forward some of the things that would help achieve consensus. One is to observe the rules, which are our rules. It does not take changing the Standing Orders to ban the practice of reading a speech. How does that connect? When a whip or a House leader in a party knows that they can rally however many MPs they have, like cannon fodder, and give them a speech to deliver in 10 minutes, they can clog up the works of this place with people giving speeches.

If the rules prohibited members from reading a speech and required them to express their thoughts in their own words, there would be fewer members rising to speak during a debate on a bill.

We need to get control of this so that we can have real debate among fewer MPs, because fewer MPs would be able to stand up and speak without a written speech.

The next thing we need to do is consider how many days we sit in this place. We have this panic this time of year, every year, as though a disaster will strike if we do not adjourn on a day that is set. We could sit for more days. We sit for far fewer days than the U.S. Congress, and even fewer days than the British Parliament.

I voted against time allocation, because this is a complicated bill and we should take the time it needs, to respect each other and come up with the best bill.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her thoughts and reflections on this.

I have a question regarding her criticism of the requirement for time allocation. I know she spends a lot of time in the House and is certainly aware of what goes on in this House. I am sure she is aware of the fact that on numerous occasions the Conservatives have been continually using any tactics possible to literally make the government grind to a halt. They do not even pick one or two issues that will be the hills they die on, but seem to just be willing to do anything at any point to stop debate.

Given the member's comments and concerns with respect to time allocation, I wonder if she can reflect on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I have seen that. Sometime before the 2019 election, I remember we had a quick move by a Conservative, who was very pleased with it, to hoist a motion on a private member's bill to declare a Canadian day to acknowledge our Spanish heritage, and he managed to have a mandatory debate that lasted five hours. People were running out of things to say. They were saying that they liked sombreros and they made gazpacho, but there was nothing to say. Everybody was in support of the motion. It was clearly a delay tactic.

We have to work harder to preserve our basic core principles and values in this place, which are that every MP should participate in reasonable debate, within which we respect each other. It is not just the Conservatives; in another Parliament it will be somebody else. We cannot allow the worst conduct of any particular Parliament to drive lesser rights for members of Parliament in the next Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I think there are some really germane facts about the Mass Casualty Commission that people need to understand, since the member brought it up. Certainly, that action was perpetrated by illegal guns, not by a legal gun owner, so I think that is important to point out.

The other important thing to point out here is that what we need to talk about in this House is so important that we should all get a chance to do it. The time allocation that the government has brought with respect to this bill is absolutely ridiculous. When we continuously see ministers misleading the House with information, it is very clear. We now know that we cannot trust anything they say, so how can we expect to move these bills forward? That is the point of debating this at the current time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say this to the member for Cumberland—Colchester, in whose riding these killings took place. The Mass Casualty Commission has revealed some things and we have to wait for its final conclusions. I think it was a mistake not to require all of the RCMP officers who participated in the events to be part of the inquiry and to testify. I know some of the families have even withdrawn participation because they are so disappointed with the path of the inquiry. What I will say is this. Whether the guns were legal or illegal, many neighbours tried to tell the RCMP they were scared of this man and nothing was done.

Bill C-21 will help deal with that.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I take issue with the same things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands does: the time-wasting tactics and the reduced time for debate prevent us from getting to the bottom of things.

I would like to know whether my colleague was as bothered as I was when we were called to vote twice instead of once to decide which Conservative member would speak. I cannot get over it and I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.

I think that closure, or time allocation, is wrong and undermines our democracy. We need to take the time to really examine the issues.

Bill C-21 is important. I think I support it, but it raises a number of issues on which I may want to see amendments, particularly regarding law-abiding citizens who use recreational firearms.

We must make every effort to come up with solutions together. That is why I oppose closure motions.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms. I am proud to support such crucial legislation, which is going to make a real difference in keeping communities like mine safe and free of gun violence.

Gun violence is on the rise in Canada. It presents a serious and significant threat to communities across the country, in the streets and at home. Every six days, a woman is killed by an intimate partner. This is not just an urban statistic but a rural one. Women in rural Canada are particularly vulnerable to homicide by firearms. When it comes to domestic violence, shotguns and rifles, usually legally obtained and commonly kept in rural homes, have been called “weapons of choice” by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. In violent homes, these guns are the tools of choice to intimidate and control women living in rural Canada.

The data is clear. Since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81% and 47% of Canadians say that gun violence poses a serious threat to their community.

There are going to be those who argue that if we regulate guns, we simply penalize law-abiding citizens and gangsters will still get their guns. That is simply not true. Most Canadian mass shooters did not have criminal records and got their guns legally. Let us recap: Fredericton, 2018, no criminal record, four dead; Danforth, 2018, no criminal record, two dead, multiple wounded; Quebec City, no criminal record, six dead, multiple wounded; and the Moncton shooter, 2014, three dead, multiple wounded.

Let us not pretend it is only gangs and illegal weapons that are the problem, because that is simply not true. Here is a sobering stat. The reality is that 75% of gun fatalities have nothing to do with gangs or criminals. It is because they are suicides.

When it comes to kids, let us look at facts. According to the Canadian Medical Association, one child in Ontario is hurt by a gun or firearm every single day, with 7% of those kids ending up dead.

This morning I woke up to an email from Susan, who is from my riding. She wrote me the following email: “Good morning MP Taleeb. Strongly recommend Bill C-21 to be given Royal Assent and pass in Parliament during this session. My brother was shot in his living room several years ago while writing a letter to me that was never completed.”

Susan is a real human being whose family has suffered the real consequences of firearms. This is why we must act. Gun violence affects people in all of our communities, whether rural, urban or suburban and all socio-economic backgrounds. We need to do more. We need to do more to protect our kids, our parents, our neighbours and everyone in between.

Every Canadian deserves to live without fear of violence. We know that inaction on gun control has real consequences. This is why, through Bill C-21, we are taking a national approach to protecting our communities from the harmful effects of gun violence.

Let us be clear about a couple of things. The bill is focused on putting a stop to tragedies, preventing gun crime and keeping our neighbours safe. It is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. That is exactly what we are doing through Bill C-21, through robust, direct action in key areas that puts in place a diverse strategy on this issue from all sides.

Action on handguns cannot wait. We are putting a national freeze on handguns to address the alarming increase in gun violence to allow a rapid and effective response. This means that, going forward, no one would be able to sell, purchase or transfer handguns by individuals within Canada or bring newly acquired firearms into the country. I want to stress this, because people are going to make a point about this. Legal gun owners would continue to possess and use their registered handguns, and could sell or transfer their registered handguns to exempted individuals or businesses.

The other key pillar of the bill centres on addressing the tragic trend between gender-based violence and guns. We see this link in our workplaces, communities, at home and online. This trend continues to persist. Protecting the safety and security of survivors of violence, particularly intimate partner violence and gender-based violence, is paramount. Victims need to feel heard and supported when they reach out for help.

That's why we are introducing red flag and yellow flag laws and expanding licence revocation. Through red flag laws, survivors can make an application to the courts for an emergency weapons prohibition order to immediately remove firearms for a period of up to 30 days from an individual who poses a danger to themselves or others.

It is also essential as a preventive approach, to ensure that victims of domestic and gender-based violence feel safe, to ensure protective intervention for those experiencing a mental health crisis, and to be able to intervene in cases where people are showing warning signs of violence.

Through yellow flag provisions, an individual's licence can be suspended for up to 30 days.

Combatting gun trafficking and smuggling, and strengthening law enforcement to tackle gun violence are key aspects of our multi-faceted solution. With Bill C-21, we are working to increase the maximum penalties for firearms offences from 10 to 14 years in prison to keep our communities safe.

Taking the necessary steps to ensure we eradicate gun violence across our country will help build safer communities for generations to come. Through Bill C-21, we would ensure kids feel safer walking home from school, women will feel safer when dealing with violent partners, and racialized communities will worry less about being murdered while praying. That is what this bill would do.

This is legislation that might well have prevented the Quebec mosque shooting, the Danforth shooting, and the Moncton and Fredericton shootings. For the victims of gun violence, thoughts and prayers cannot be the best we have, but preventing the next attack by making it harder and harder for firearms to enter our communities would ensure the deaths of those who have passed would not be in vain.

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

Madam Speaker, coming from a rural riding, I feel like I am probably a bit more well versed in what rural people think about guns than someone who comes from an urban riding.

That being said, I would like to update the House on what the CMA policy says around the prevention of firearm violence. What it says is that they recommend guidance on the prevention of firearm violence, education for the safe handling of firearms and the regulation of firearms, while also identifying areas for further research. Recommendations include creating evidence-based education programs to prevent firearm violence, improving access to publicly funded mental health services and requiring strong record-keeping for firearms retailers, distributors and private sellers to help prevent the illegal acquisition and use of firearms.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is striking the member quotes the CMA and he quotes the importance of being able to register and regulate firearms, yet it is curious his party has consistently opposed any efforts to register firearms. It has opposed firearms registries and pretty much everything, so I am glad he is looking at the research put out by medical professionals, who have said that, in fact, gun violence kills or harms one child every single day in the province of Ontario. That should mean something.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understood. Perhaps something was lost in the interpretation. I do not know, but I am going to ask my colleague to clarify what he said.

He is telling us that it is all right if Bill C‑21 does not address street violence, because statistics show that there are more gun deaths related to suicide than to street violence.

Is the member seriously comparing those two concepts?

Why did he give such a frivolous example?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would not call it a futile example, because it is at once important for us to recognize that guns kill people, whether it is in the commission of crimes or when people are taking their own lives. Our obligation to protect Canadians is to make sure that we make it as difficult as possible for crimes to be committed and for people to use guns to take their own lives. We have an obligation to protect one another and to take care of our communities. This and mental health are all important elements that go into protecting society, but taking guns out of people's hands where violence can occur is a critical component and responsibility of the House.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with much that was stated today, and for all those reasons, we need to see action happening around this issue. We know that 99,000 Canadians were victims of intimate partner violence, predominantly composed of women. Of those, in 500 incidents of intimate partner violence in that same year, 2018, firearms were present.

What does the member propose to tackle the increasing rates of intimate partner violence using guns?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, through the use of the yellow flag and red flag I think we would start to move in that direction, but there is a lot more we need to do. Working together with organizations that have been advocating for us to do better, we will continue to do so. I think that means doing everything, including ensuring people who pose a threat or risk to their partner cannot get their hands on guns. That is a very important step, and by passing this law we would make it harder for those who choose to engage in partner violence by taking that option off the table for them, which is critically important, because we have to protect our families, our communities and people in our society.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to know how long the member researched that speech. Did he in fact make a material contribution or was it prepared for him?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is more than welcome to come over here to look at my notes and look at my computer, if he would like.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Correctional Service of Canada; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Taxation.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour and a privilege to be able to enter into debate on the important issues that are facing Canadians.

It is interesting. I have been listening closely to the debate that has transpired over the course of today. Contrary to the government's justification for moving closure, the only three hours and 26 or 24 minutes of debate that has taken place on a previous day on what is a significant piece of legislation that impacts millions of Canadians, millions of law-abiding firearms owners, failed to actually address the lofty submissions that the government has tried to make clear.

I am proud to be a member of Parliament who represents a large rural area. I have spoken to numerous constituents over the last number of days and weeks since the most recent iteration of the Liberals' attack on law-abiding firearms' owners and it fails to address the real problems that are leading to a significant increase in violent crime in our streets and a troubling and alarming increase in crime in rural areas. It fails on both those fronts.

I have spoken with many constituents, young, old, professionals, those who have grown up using firearms and those who came to use them later in life. Notably, two stuck out from my calls over the past couple of weeks. One was a retired school principal and his wife, who came into the hobby of sport shooting. They called and asked me to reach out to them to discuss Bill C-21. They pleaded with me to try to bring some sense to the debate that is taking place regarding firearms in this country, to which I promised that I would try. Unfortunately, it seems that politics and rhetoric have blinded those on Canada's left to actually having a constructive dialogue.

I spoke yesterday with a 24-year-old man who is very concerned about how this would impact his ability to participate in his favourite hobby. He is a young, budding electrician, just finishing up his time at a polytechnic in Alberta, who is excited to get to work and start being able to invest in his hobby, yet the Liberals are taking away those opportunities.

Here we are again. Time and time again, when the Liberals dive in the polls, we can expect this sort of legislation to come forward. We see the importation of wedge issues into discourse within our country. We have seen it time and time again, certainly over the course of the time I have been elected. As I look back over my involvement in politics, this is the exact way the Liberals approach these issues.

Whether it be firearms, the issue of abortion or vaccines, an issue that was not controversial up until our Prime Minister decided to run an election campaign on it, that sort of wedge politics does not actually result in good public policy, and we see that being the case here today.

I did want to share a couple of statements that I think, hopefully, the governing Liberals would take seriously: “The long-gun registry, as it was, was a failure and I'm not going to resuscitate that”. Do we know who said that? It was the Prime Minister.

He went on to say, “I grew up with long guns, rifles and shotguns”. The Prime Minister said that, and then, going on, he said, “Yes, the RCMP guarding me had handguns and I got to play with them every now and then”, adding that the RCMP were very responsible around him and his siblings.

The now Prime Minister, then individual who was running to be Prime Minister of the country, went on to say:

I was raised with an appreciation and an understanding of how important in rural areas and right across the country gun ownership is as a part of the culture of Canada. I do not feel that there's any huge contradiction between keeping our cities safe from gun violence and gangs, and allowing this important facet of Canadian identity which is having a gun.

“Having a firearm is 'an important facet of Canadian identity'.” That was said by the then leader of the Liberal Party when he was running for office and needed some rural votes to build a coalition that obviously was calculated at the time to be successful. He did win the 2015 election, but how things have changed since that point in time. I can only come to the conclusion that it is a flip-flop, like many issues on which the Prime Minister takes a position. When things change, in terms of the political benefit or strategy of the day, that position in many cases takes a 180°. We see a backdoor gun registry: It is not a government-administered centralized gun registry, as we have seen in the past, but we have seen the Liberals implement that.

I have heard some of my colleagues talk today about some of the challenges when it comes to indigenous peoples, the reality of the indigenous way of life and the importance of firearms ownership that the Liberals may be taking away from them. I am a rural member of Parliament and a firearms owner. Having gone through the significant process, I will take a brief moment to say that all members of Parliament in this place, whether they own guns or not, should take the time and put in the effort to get their possession and acquisition licences. I suggest they would be very pleased with the fact that we have a strong suite of rules and structures that ensure there is safe firearms ownership in this country. I find the lack of understanding with regard to that very troubling, when it comes to making public policy and the legislation we have before us.

We have a significant issue when it comes to rising crime rates. There is no question. Conservatives even endeavoured to split this bill. We brought forward a motion to see parts of this bill go forward, but the Liberals said no because it did not fit their political narrative. We see a significant issue when it comes to illegal guns. We see a significant issue when it comes to mental health. We see a significant issue when it comes to rural crime and the challenges with law enforcement in many areas of our country. Bill C-21 does not address those things. It is pure and simple: It does not.

It is unfortunate that while there are several million gun owners in this country, there are many people who have not had the opportunity to understand that firearms, in many cases, are tools. This would be no more evident than when I had a dialogue with the then minister of public safety in the last Parliament. We had a discussion in the aftermath of a very tragic circumstance. I will get to some recent revelations about that in just a moment. Firearms can be used as weapons, as can anything else used with the intent to harm. A firearm is also a tool. It is something that any rural individual who has farmed, ranched, hunted or whatever the case may be has used as either a weapon or a tool. I would suggest the Liberals should be very cognizant of that reality in this place.

I would simply highlight that the allegations made today in a published article related to the shootings in the Maritimes cannot be understated. The Liberals seem to dismiss how serious the possibility of political interference in an investigation is. As I read this article just prior to question period, I was astounded by how it appears there was blatant political interference in what was an absolutely tragic circumstance. It is something that should never have happened. The fact that the government, at least according to the allegations, would go to those lengths to try to leverage a tragedy such as that for its political benefit speaks to how all Canadians and all legislators in this place should be very hesitant about passing a bill when they are willing to go to those lengths to deceive Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Is the member not doing the exact same thing, Madam Speaker? He is literally doing what he is accusing the government of. He says that the government is using a crisis, an extremely horrendous event, as a political opportunity, but the Conservatives are doing that today by bringing this up during this debate and during question period. The member is doing it right now. He is using that incident as an opportunity to promote his political agenda.

I find it very rich and ironic that he would stand there and suggest that this side of the House used an opportunity when the Conservatives are the ones politicizing it right now.

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

Madam Speaker, as I have referenced before, and many Conservatives have said, the government does not actually like it when there is an opposition party in this place. Liberals would rather have an audience. They will only accept criticism when it aligns with their narrow ideological and political perspective.

That member has audacity to suggest that Conservatives are endeavouring to bring what are incredibly serious allegations to the cornerstone of Canadian debate and democracy, when it is that party that is in government and when it is alleged that there are members of that cabinet, up to the Prime Minister's Office, involved in political interference in an RCMP investigation. The fact that they would suggest that somehow Conservatives bringing it up is political posturing is absolutely despicable behaviour—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

At this time, yes.

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

Madam Speaker, I expect better from any person who has the honour of sitting in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary knows full well that he has had an opportunity to ask a question and he should hold off with any other comments until I recognize him.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of good things in the bill and we will have the opportunity to propose amendments at committee.

However, the bill will not allow for the seizure of weapons being used to commit crimes. We know that the weapons being used right now in Montreal are, in many cases, being wielded by criminal groups and that they have been smuggled across the border illegally.

For several weeks, and even months, the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the Minister of Public Safety to create a registry of criminal organizations, so that police officers can apprehend their members and better fight crime in Montreal.

I wonder if my colleague agrees with the suggestion to create a registry like this as quickly as possible, so that we can rid Montreal of these weapons.

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

Madam Speaker, he is absolutely right. We need to ensure that law enforcement has the tools required. Whether on the streets of Montreal or on the gravel roads in Battle River—Crowfoot, law enforcement needs the tools that are required to ensure that the law can in fact be enforced.

When it comes to a gang registry, that is a very interesting idea that could very well have some merit. It also needs to expand to the fact that we have a problem with illegal guns coming over our borders. Border enforcement agents have shared with me how there is so little enforcement that they do not even know the half of many of the illegal activities and contraband items, including firearms, that could be coming across our borders.

It is somewhat rich and tragic, I would suggest, that instead of addressing the illegal firearms, and admittedly it would be a challenge to do so, they are targeting law-abiding firearms owners who are not the problem.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the massacres that took place in Quebec, like the ones at the École polytechnique in Montreal and the mosque in Quebec City, were committed with assault weapons, not hunting rifles. Handguns, not hunting rifles, are what are being used in the shootings in the streets of Montreal.

Is it not true that the first thing that should be done is to restrict some people's ability to get their hands on these extremely dangerous weapons?

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

Madam Speaker, as is the case with any tragedy, and the member is right, law enforcement needs the resources to be able to get the job done. When it comes to those who are vetted through the regulations and structures that we have in this country, generally Canadians are pretty happy with them. They generally do a pretty good job of ensuring that firearms are well regulated, that there is safe structure and a system that works.

We need to address, however, all those who commit crimes, who smuggle those guns, and who are exposed to extremist ideologies and would perpetrate hate crimes. When it comes to those who are law-abiding firearms owners, that is not the problem. Let us deal with the hard, challenging issues to reduce crime on our streets and on gravel roads across the country to ensure that Canadians are actually protected.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, after being elected to Calgary City Council in 2017, I promised my constituents I would always fight for safer communities. Since my election to the House as a member of Parliament, I have not wavered on that commitment.

As we witness horrifying gun violence south of the border alongside a steady increase in crime involving firearms across our country, it could not be clearer that at this time we need decisive action. I am honoured to rise in the House of Commons today to speak in support of Bill C-21, our Liberal government's firearms legislation.

It is a privilege to be part of a government that understands and acknowledges the extent of the problem caused by guns in our communities. I am proud that our Minister of Public Safety has brought forward this robust piece of legislation.

Today, I am speaking to Canadians whose lives have been forever changed by gun violence and am sharing why I support our government's steps to create safer communities.

Gun violence is on the rise across Canada, whether the opposition would like to admit it or not. In my time serving on Calgary City Council, I recognized the urgency needed by all levels of government to tackle gun violence. This is why I brought forward Calgary's public safety task force and served as its chair.

We brought together stakeholders from the community, academia and law enforcement as well as three levels of government to engage with those who are most affected by gun violence. We acknowledged the problem, we listened to those affected and we proposed common sense steps our city government could take to address gun violence. We did not find all the answers, but we collectively acknowledged the need for a multi-faceted approach.

Today, I am fortunate to sit on this side of the House, where the urgency needed to address the fight against gun violence is matched by meaningful action. Illegal firearms are a significant threat to public safety in Canada and worldwide. The numbers do not lie. Violent offences involving guns have increased by over 80%. The proportion of homicides that involved a firearm rose from 26% of all homicides in 2013 to 37% in 2020. Specifically, handguns were the most dangerous weapon in 60% of firearm-related violent crimes between 2015 and 2020. A multitude of statistics point to the following conclusions: Gun crime is rising across Canada, and handguns are involved more often than not.

It is not strictly an urban issue, either. Data from Statistics Canada shows that gun crime rates are high and trending upward across rural Canada. Gun violence affects all Canadians, regardless of their postal code. We have seen too many horrific crimes at the hands of guns. Countless lives have been lost and families have been torn apart due to gun crime.

It is time to deal with this. When policy-makers talk about gun violence, we often get caught up in the statistics, trends and numbers. The numbers mask a harsh reality. Gun crime destroys lives and communities.

I hear stories on a near weekly basis about gun violence impacting Calgary, my home.

On May 10, Angela McKenzie, a mother of five beautiful children, was murdered by a man with a gun in the northeast quadrant.

On May 18, a student brought a handgun to Bowness High School in northwest Calgary. Thankfully, nobody was hurt that day. A few days later, a shooting in the quiet southwest Calgary neighbourhood of Acadia sent an 18-year-old to the hospital.

Last week, a man was shot in southeast Calgary. He passed away in the hospital on Wednesday.

On Friday, 25-year-old Autumn Levi Cross Child was killed by a man with a gun in northeast Calgary.

The victims are so much more than numbers in a police report. They are real people with names, families, friends, hopes and dreams. From January until last week, only a little more than halfway through the year, Calgary has seen 66 shootings. The effect that each of these shootings has had on the broader community is immeasurable. We must do better, and our government's proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and Firearms Act are a massive step in the right direction.

The thing is, our Liberal government knows what we need to do and we are not afraid to do it. While opposition members close their eyes and pretend that gun violence is not an issue or say that we are simply punishing law-abiding firearm owners, on this side of the House we prefer to face reality and deal with the problems head-on. We are dealing with these problems through Bill C-21 because we cannot allow Canadian communities to continue to be irreparably damaged by criminals with guns.

This issue is personal to me. Like many Canadians, I have lost friends and loved ones in firearms-related incidents. I have seen the devastating impact that gun violence has brought upon communities. It is one of the reasons I put my name forward in my first election. As a Calgary city councillor, I was grateful for the opportunity to chair our city's public safety task force, serve on our police commission and learn more about gun violence.

We looked at studies and statistics and engaged with relevant stakeholders, including the Calgary Police Service, the Calgary Police Commission, community members directly impacted by gun crime and community leaders. Throughout our meetings, interviews, round tables and research, there was a recurring theme: We need to do more to keep guns off our streets.

Our government is following through on one of our public safety commitments to Canadians with Bill C-21. Bill C-21 would provide our government with several tools to reduce gun crime. It would implement a national freeze on the sale, purchase or transfer of handguns. Handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals, and action to keep them off of our streets cannot wait. They simply have no place in safe communities.

Our government is taking an evidence-based approach that would target illegal gun and gang activity. We are not targeting law-abiding gun owners with these measures. We are taking immediate action against the criminals who use guns to disrupt law and order and commit violent crimes by capping the market for their weapon of choice. This bill would directly result in fewer illegal handguns on Canadian streets.

Bill C-21 also proposes a red flag provision that would allow anybody to apply for an emergency weapons prohibition. This would immediately allow authorities to remove firearms from an individual who poses a danger to themselves or someone else—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up. I am sure he will be able to add more during questions and comments.

We have a point of order from the hon. Minister of National Revenue.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

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

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

I will look directly at the member and say that on this side of the House, we care about gun crime. I spent three years of my life invested in doing everything I could with respect to my job when it came to gun crime, and I believe that my colleagues share that same sentiment. We do not want to see another shooting.

My question is twofold. First off, I am sorry, as I noted the hon. member spoke about the people in his life who have been impacted by gun crime. That is horrible and we do not want to see it. However, the member cited a number of cases, and I am wondering if he knows whether the guns used were legally or illegally obtained, and why we are not going after illegal guns in Bill C-21. Second, how does he reconcile this speech with the fact that we have lowered sentences with conditional sentence orders in Bill C-5?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for his heartfelt comments.

To address his question, I can tell him that the Calgary Police Commission provided data several years ago on guns used in gun crime. The majority of them were legally obtained. That is an important statistic for the House to know, and we need to make sure we take action on that.

Guns are smuggled across the country, as we know, and that is why our government has taken strong action in supporting CBSA to ensure that we combat smuggling with stricter penalties.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has a point of order, and I hope it is not a point of clarification.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a point of order related to the motion the Minister of National Revenue moved. As agreed to by the House, there is the requirement that another House leader concur with the government, and certainly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

As the hon. member knows full well, I have ruled on this on a number of occasions, especially yesterday. I will remind him that as the Chair has previously pointed out, the motion adopted on May 2 simply states that a minister must have the agreement of another House leader. It does not require that the parties to the agreement communicate to the House, and it is not my responsibility to judge that. Therefore, I remind the member, and any other members who wish to stand on this, that I will not accept any other points of order on the motion the minister has tabled.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are currently discussing a bill that would strengthen gun control. We are prepared to study it and analyze it in committee.

However, as the Montreal police have fully shown and documented, most gun violence is committed with illegal weapons, contraband weapons.

Why is it that the government is not taking steps to stop this smuggling, despite all the pressure we have been exerting for a registry of criminal organizations and more measures at the border?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, this bill does address some of the issues on smuggling at the border that have been brought forward by my colleague.

I also want to acknowledge that in urban centres, our government has supported municipalities through the building safer communities fund by providing Canadian municipalities with $250 million for crime prevention. It is money to make sure youth in our communities, the kids who are vulnerable, do not get involved in this type of activity. I would love to work with the members across the aisle to ensure that we learn from each other to see what is working well across Canada and to make sure we support each other in our communities.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the red flag provision, which is an important provision. Community members are saying, though, that the process the bill outlines is an onerous one because people have to petition the courts to put it in place.

How would the government address this issue? We need quick action when it comes to saving lives.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, we want to bring forward red flag and yellow flag provisions to make sure we avoid some of the challenges and make sure that when folks who should not have guns pose a threat to their partners, their guns can be taken away, as needed.

We need to continue to work with many of our stakeholders. I spent a lot of time as chair of the public safety task force in the city of Calgary. I worked with community members. I heard from community leaders and stakeholders who really wanted us to move on these issues, and I am happy that we have addressed them in Bill C-21.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, from time to time, I have been critical of the record of the Liberal government when it comes to fiscal matters. It has consistently shown that it has no clue how an economy works and what policies are good for Canadians.

In fairness though, I feel I must congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety for their unintentional boost to the Canadian economy with Bill C-21. It is so rare that a Liberal policy is designed to provide economic stimulus that I feel this is worth noting.

Maclean's magazine's Ottawa bureau chief Shannon Proudfoot featured an interview with gun shop owner Ryan Simper. He said that after this bill was announced, his store sold every handgun it had in stock. Apparently, there is no better stimulus for the economy than scarcity of a product.

Maybe if the Liberals truly want to stimulate the economy, they should try other bans and see if that helps. I encourage them to look for areas where there may be an abundance of supply and lagging sales, and see if they can help those sectors of the economy. Maybe if they banned broccoli, for example, it would help vegetable sales. In the absence of a true economic plan, such acts would at least show them to be doing something worth while.

Handguns are already well regulated in this country. Anyone who wishes to own one legally must take a safety course and undergo background checks. It is an extensive, time-consuming process, and one that gun owners understand is there to provide reasonable protections for society.

However, those protections, like this bill, do nothing to stop the flow of illegal handguns in Canada. Gun violence and gun crime problems in Canada do not come from those who have taken a firearms safety course and have been cleared for gun ownership after their background check.

Responsible handgun owners, the ones targeted by this bill, are collectors or target shooters. They are not criminals. Those who want to join their ranks should not be prohibited from doing so merely because the government does not know how to deal with crime and the flow of illegal firearms being smuggled into Canada.

To me, it seems that the government, not knowing how to deal with the problem, wants to pretend to show the public that it is doing something. This bill will not help, but the government will not admit that. I think everyone in the House can agree that both gun violence and gun crime are not acceptable in Canadian society. Where we might differ is how to best deal with the issue.

It has been my experience that the Liberals are so blinded by their ideology that suggestions for improvement to their legislation fall on deaf ears. Nevertheless, I would like to offer them some ideas to accomplish their goal of reducing gun crime in Canada.

The idea of strengthening border controls and authorities to combat firearms smuggling, trafficking and related offences is something we can all agree on. I call on the government to make that the focus of this legislation. Drop the attacks on legal, law-abiding gun owners and concentrate on those who are already breaking Canadian law.

I should also point out that there are contradictions in this piece of legislation. There are some individuals who will be exempted from the provisions and would still be allowed to purchase handguns. That includes elite sports shooters who compete or coach in a handgun discipline recognized by the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee. The exemption makes sense.

We Canadians are proud of our Olympians, and we have had some success at pistol shooting competitions. In 1984, Linda Thom won the gold medal in pistol shooting at the Los Angeles Olympics, the first Canadian woman to win an individual gold medal in the summer Olympics since 1928 and the first Canadian to win a gold medal in the summer Olympics since 1968. She was given the honour of carrying Canada's flag at the closing ceremonies.

As an elite shooter, she would still be allowed to purchase a handgun if this legislation were to pass unchanged. However, what about those who want to follow in her footsteps?

I cannot think of any sport where one becomes a world-class athlete overnight. It takes hard work, dedication and training, usually for years. Wayne Gretzky had to learn to skate before he could even begin to put a puck in the net. How will the next Linda Thom become available, or a future Canadian Olympian become an elite shooter?

Even members of the government must understand that it requires practice, practice and more practice for a shooter to reach the level necessary to compete at the Olympics. Under Bill C-21, new participants in this sport would not be allowed to purchase a handgun to practice with. Apparently, the Liberals have decided that this is one sport they do not want to see Canada excel in.

The Conservatives have always stood for common sense firearms safety and strong consequences for those who commit firearms offences. We do not understand why the government wants to punish law-abiding firearms owners and make it difficult, if not impossible, for those who might want to take up a sport such as pistol shooting.

The government was first elected in 2015, and gun crime has gone up steadily each year, despite its arbitrary bans and its complicated and expensive buyback program. This increase in gun crime is not because those who own weapons legally are suddenly turning to lawlessness, but because illegal weapons are being smuggled into Canada and used by criminals. It has taken seven long years for the government to understand that there is a problem.

This belated realization comes only after it blocked a Conservative bill to toughen consequences for gun smuggling. If only it had concentrated on crime and criminals, I could have applauded its better-late-than-never efforts. Instead, it is once again targeting responsible gun owners who have committed no crimes, which makes us wonder how serious it is about really being tough on crime. After all, this is a government that intends to remove through other legislation mandatory minimum sentences for robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences, and possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, and more.

Members will forgive me for thinking that this new revelation that gun smuggling needs to be dealt with is just a lot of words. There are already laws on the books to deal with such acts if the government has the will and the police have the resources to enforce them. If it were serious about crime, it would not be trying to target responsible gun-owning Canadians who have followed all the rules and restrictions that come with gun ownership. Of course, they are an easy target for a government that does not seem to know how to address the issues of most concern to Canadians.

Canadians are tired of false promises from the government. This bill once again proves that the Liberals do not understand where they should be focusing their efforts in order to protect the people of Canada.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, if we want to know how seriously the Conservatives are taking this particular issue, we need look no further than that last speech when the member compared purchasing a gun to purchasing broccoli.

Nonetheless, I found his speech very interesting when he was talking about how the Conservatives have always understood the need to stand up against illegal gun use, the need to strengthen border measures, and the like. He sat on this side of the House when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, and he had a lot of opportunity to ask him why he was massively reducing the resources at the border to help deal with these issues.

Why is the issue of illegal guns coming across the border suddenly so important to the Conservatives now, when the member clearly did not raise the issue when he sat on this side of the House?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, from time to time, it is nice to correct some of the facts. I am not sure if the member remembers this, but I was not here before 2015.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is now more of a debate happening between members, as opposed to the hon. member answering the question. I know he is able to answer the question without any help.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will forgive him because of his short memory. They are known for their short memories on the other side. I will also forgive him for not understanding the difference between broccoli and firearms.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do want to apologize to the member. That was my error. He conducts himself so well in the House that I assumed he had been here for a very, very long time. I apologize.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question.

Bill C-21 is a half measure, because it will have no real impact on organized crime and illegal weapons. With regard to organized crime, the Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C-279, which aims to create a list of criminal organizations.

Would the member agree with this kind of crackdown?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the focus of my speech and those of my colleagues is on being tough on crime, and on making sure the borders are protected and smugglers do not bring illegal guns to Canada. Any effort that goes in that direction is well supported by us.

That should be the spirit of any bill brought to this place, or to be brought to this place in the future. This is the only point that we disagree with the Liberals on because they are not focusing on where the problem is. They are going after law-abiding Canadians, which is something we do not like to see and we do not support.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, there have been shootings in the streets of Montreal for several weeks. There are neighbourhoods where children are afraid to go home after school. They hear bullets whistling through the air. Reducing access to guns, which are dangerous and are killing people in our streets, would be a good first step with Bill C‑21, which is not perfect and we must improve.

Would it not be a good idea to ban assault weapons and reduce access to handguns?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we would like to see a complete solution to a big problem that is facing Canada and Canadians. We do not want to see any crimes happening in any part of Canada, whether in an urban city or in rural areas.

We believe that this bill is falling short in dealing with the problem and bringing the remedy needed to make sure that we have solutions to the big issues we are facing.

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

Madam Speaker, I was really interested in what the member said about exclusions. He said there are exclusions for an elite shooters or marksman.

What I am wondering about is this: If someone is not already an elite marksman, how does one learn to become one without access to the equipment needed to learn the skills?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a question of fairness too. That is why I said that this bill is falling short on so many fronts. One of them is this point.

The government should have thought about it longer and deeper to do a better job of bringing a good piece of legislation forward that would really help Canadians.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, my speech will be interrupted and I will resume after Private Members' Business.

First of all, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that the gun owners I know, and I suppose out of all the people I know, I do not know who owns guns, but of those that I know who own guns, I can say they are sterling citizens. I am thinking of a couple of individuals in particular. They are pillars of the community and are constant volunteers.

It is very important that we do not impugn legal gun owners because they do take their responsibilities seriously. As a matter of fact, I was on the phone with a constituent today who is a gun owner. He was not happy with all aspects of this bill, obviously. However, he was quite happy to conform to all the responsibilities of gun ownership that are conferred on him by the government.

Also, I would like to say that I understand the cultural value of hunting. As a matter of fact, many years ago I had the opportunity to travel to Rouyn-Noranda in northern Quebec during moose hunting season. I was able to see first-hand how deeply ingrained the practice is in the community. Moose hunting is something that brings the community together. There is a deep reverence for the animal. I remember actually attending a moose calling competition in a church basement and people took it very seriously.

However, I will come back to that after Private Members' Business.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

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

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

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

This bill is not about the cultural value of hunting. It is not about persecuting duck hunters or deer hunters, who do not use handguns to hunt their prey, in any event. It is about acting before it is too late. What I mean by that is I do not believe that any member of the House wants Canada to turn into the United States as we see it today. Regardless of party, I believe we are all united in this notion.

In the United States, there are more guns than people. People there carry guns routinely such that we could be sitting on a bus and could almost assume, or it almost makes sense to assume, that a person may be packing a pistol. We do not know, when we bump into someone, if they are going to take it personally. A tragic consequence could result. It is a country where we see gun tragedies almost daily. No one in the House wants to go there; no one in the House wants Canada to be that way.

Gun violence is a multi-faceted problem, and I think it is really important that we do not oversimplify the issue. I understand that in QP, questions can be one-dimensional and issues get simplified. It is all part of the cut and thrust of debate, but I think when it comes to crafting policy, we should not oversimplify.

I have heard it said in speeches in the House that, well, gun crimes are up with the Liberals in power. The first cardinal sin of oversimplification is to confuse correlation with causation, so let us look at the facts.

Since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81%. If I recall correctly, 2009 is before 2015, when our Liberal government was elected. The fact that gun crimes are going up has nothing to do with the Liberal government's agenda. In fact, it probably has more to do with funding cuts to the CBSA by the former Harper government.

Another fact is that handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals. We know that the RCMP and border services have been working hard to cut the flow of firearms into Canada, mainly handguns. As a matter of fact, I believe the RCMP and border services intercepted nearly double the number of firearms in 2021 than the year before. The forces of the government are working hard and are having some success. The idea that gun violence going up is the fault of the Liberal government really is a terrible oversimplification and should not be allowed to stand.

Another fact I have learned is that over half of crime guns traced in 2020 in Canada were sourced domestically. In other words, they were obtained legally, or through theft or straw purchasing, including 50% of handguns traced. That is a big number of guns that are actually legal guns. The problem of illegal guns coming across the border is a serious one, obviously, but so is the pool of legal guns in this country.

Another point I would like to make is that ordinary Canadians, all of us, have a right to feel safe. We hear the opposition talk about this constantly when they bring up crime issues. They always talk about victims and how the community has the right to feel safe. This is what the bill is all about. It is about the right of Canadians to feel safe in their communities, especially, for example, victims of conjugal violence.

There is a contradiction, I would posit, in the Conservative narrative. When it comes to protecting communities through minimum sentences, the Conservatives are all in, but when it comes to protecting communities by curbing gun violence, all of a sudden the argument is that of course they want to curb gun violence, but the Liberal government approach is just not a practical one that is likely to work. In other words, there is a big escape hatch in the argument.

It is a complex problem, and it is not going to be solved uniquely by freezing the pool of legal handguns in this country. Some funding is required. We have already put $920 million into addressing gun violence. That includes $312 million over five years to increase intelligence and investigative capacity at the border, and $250 million for municipalities and indigenous communities for programming to prevent gang violence through the building safer communities fund. As far as my own province of Quebec is concerned, our government recently provided $46 million to the province under the guns and gangs initiative.

I think that brings me to the end. I look forward to listening to further speeches on the topic.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member on the opposite side gave a good speech.

I would like to ask him a question, and he would know me to be somewhat analytical in my approach to Canada's problems and how the government needs to look at solving those problems. I am looking at the data that shows what crimes are actually being committed in Canada and what weapons are being used in those crimes.

Does the member think it might be a little unambitious to go after legal gun owners to deal with crimes that are largely committed with guns that are not legally registered, or could his government perhaps decide to work a little harder and provide a little more ambition to show Canadians how that would reduce crime across Canada?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, freezing the pool of legal handguns would not solve the problem in and of itself. It would reduce the risk going forward of illegal handguns from a growing pool making their way into the hands of criminals.

It would minimize the risks, but there are other actions that need to be taken at the border. Those actions are being taken through budget investments that would help pay for new technologies, new scanning technologies. As I mentioned in my speech, there is money being spent to enhance the intelligence gathering and investigative capacity of the RCMP and the CBSA. We have to tackle gang activity through different programs, and so on and so forth. It is not just one solution to a complex problem.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member said that Bill C‑21 does not target hunting rifles and that hunters are capable of managing their firearms responsibly.

This bill, however, is a half measure. The member said people should feel safe. As a member from the Island of Montreal, he knows that there are neighbourhoods where people no longer feel safe.

Does he agree that Bill C‑21, while it may be a step in the right direction, should have gone much further and should have included stricter control at the border and joint efforts to fight organized crime and smuggling as well as the registry we have been talking about for weeks that could have given us more control over smuggling and made Montreal's streets safer?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I see these as two components.

This bill seeks to freeze the legal gun market, including handguns. As far as the border is concerned, it is often a question of budget, which requires giving the departments the necessary resources to develop more effective strategies to deal with illegal firearms smuggling.

To me, these are two different components. The fact that we introduced Bill C‑21 does not stop us from giving the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency the resources they need to develop the strategies that the member for Montcalm mentioned.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, normally I would say it is a pleasure to rise to speak in the House, but I find it a little challenging when it is concerning Bill C-21.

In my former life, I was the mayor of a small city in Saskatchewan. One of my many roles as mayor was being the chair of the police commission. I have witnessed first-hand the full spectrum between responsible firearms owners and gang members. I am no stranger to competitive shooting or understanding the importance of the safe use of firearms. As a young boy, I won top shot numerous times in Air Cadets, and I was second in my platoon in basic officer training in Saint-Jean, Quebec. I credit this to my grandfather, who was a sniper in the offensive during World War II.

I personally know several people, and those from organizations, who are all responsible firearms owners who promote firearms safety. Today we are in the House to debate an example of the government doing something just to say it is doing something. This is something it has tremendous experience in. It is as though it legislates to generate good talking points instead of good policy. There is an old saying: “Walk around. Carry a clipboard, and look busy.” This is exactly what the government is doing: looking busy and accomplishing nothing.

As everyone watching likely knows, Bill C-21 is the Liberal government's latest attack on responsible Canadian firearms owners, another band-aid solution, another policy that would punish people instead of helping them. The government has had a habit of punishing people or industries for ideological reasons. I can name any number of examples: its carbon tax, warning labels on ground beef and, today, this attack on lawful firearms owners.

The NDP-Liberal government does not think people should hunt. It does not think farmers need firearms as tools. It does not think target shooting is a legitimate sport. The government simply does not believe anyone should own a gun. In short, it does not understand rural Canada. It is attacking us and our way of life.

Today I would like to spend some time talking about one of the aspects of this bill that has received the most attention and the most press: the handgun. Licensed handgun owners in Canada are responsible owners. For my Liberal colleagues across the aisle, who likely do not know the process but think they are experts, I would like to share with the House the lengthy process to obtain a handgun in Canada.

First, people need to go through the process to get their PAL. Again for my Liberal colleagues, that stands for a possession and acquisition licence. That involves taking the firearm safety course, passing the test and, finally, filling out the application forms and going through the needed background checks. To obtain a licence for a handgun, people also need to pass an additional safety course, which is the Canadian restricted firearm safety course. They must register the handgun and follow special storage, display, transportation and handling requirements. They may not carry the firearms on their person, they may only use them for target shooting or collecting. They may only be used at approved ranges, and one would likely need to be members in good standing at said ranges, which would come with its own background check.

After going through all these steps, it is not hard to see why handgun owners are so responsible. The cost and time to go through this process alone would deter anyone from breaking any of these rules. The question I have for my NDP-Liberal colleagues is this: What would a handgun ban accomplish that these strict rules do not already accomplish?

We all know that Canada's largest cities are experiencing a surge in gun violence. That is something that needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly, but it is not something this bill would do anything to address.

The government has never even tried to address the reasons people join gangs. Youth do it out of a sense of hopelessness and a lack of belonging. Hopelessness is created by not having a sense of responsibility. Who would when a government tries to bubble-wrap people and make decisions for them in almost every aspect of their lives?

What we want are responsible citizens who make decisions for themselves, who understand that for every decision a person makes, there is a consequence and sometimes an unintended consequence. For every decision someone makes, they have a choice between doing something good or something bad. They can either contribute to society and help their fellow man or take away from society and tear down their fellow man. What needs to be instilled in this country and future generations is a sense of responsibility, a sense of belonging and clear examples of the differences between right and wrong.

The gangs our youth are joining that commit these shootings are not using legal, registered firearms. They are using handguns smuggled over the border. Our border agency, the CBSA, needs more resources to tackle this problem. That is something that this bill, Bill C-21, falls well short of.

Recently the public safety committee tabled its guns and gangs report, which included several recommendations to tackle gun violence in Canada, recommendations that seem to have been totally ignored in drafting this bill. It included recommendations such as creating a program to tour young offenders through penitentiaries; maintaining mandatory minimum sentences for drug and firearm-related crimes; removing the expensive firearm buyback program and allocating the money to gang prevention programs; adequately funding indigenous police forces to combat gangs and gun smuggling; and that the government actually recognize that the majority of illegal firearms in Canada are the result of smuggling.

If the NDP-Liberals were more interested in developing good policy instead of good talking points, they would have paid attention to the committee's important work. Sadly, this has not been the case.

Bill C-21 is short on resources not only for the CBSA, but also for the RCMP. I have a constituent who has been trying, as a responsible gun owner, to contact the RCMP to register a handgun so that they are aware before the deadline. There are absolutely no resources in the RCMP to handle this influx of requests caused by the government's announcement. I have spoken to this man personally, and he is very concerned. He is very concerned because he is a responsible gun owner and he wants to do the right thing, but he cannot accomplish that because of the limited resources the government has allocated to allow him to follow the rules.

As I mentioned before, I can say with near certainty that the gang members in downtown Toronto are not graduates of a restricted firearms safety course. I talked earlier about carrying a clipboard and looking busy. The government is very good at introducing legislation that does very little and simply virtue signals to their base. That is exactly what Bill C-21 is doing, virtue signalling to their base at the expense of Saskatchewan and all of rural Canada.

Finally, this being my last chance to speak before we will rise for the summer, I would like to take this chance to thank the pages, interpreters, security, IT staff and everyone else who keeps this place running. I wish them a well-deserved summer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can understand and appreciate the member is not going to be supporting the legislation. The Conservative Party has made that very clear. It is the only political party that will not be supporting this legislation.

More things are involved, if the member is aware, within this legislation. For example, the idea of red flags and yellow flags and ensuring there is a higher sense of safety and security for situations of domestic abuse. Does the member see any aspect of this legislation he could actually support?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about red flags and yellow flags. Here is a red flag: Our party approached the Liberals to split this bill so that we could actually have a conversation about it, but that did not happen. The red flag is when we hear from the Liberals that they want to listen to the people, but they are not. They did not listen, and they are not listening to reports coming to them that are giving them good advice. Instead, they are shutting themselves down and saying this is what we need to do. They are not listening. They are not listening to Saskatchewan.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two important groups that support this bill.

The first is PolyRemembers, which was founded after the shooting at École polytechnique in Montreal in 1989, where 14 young women were killed. The other represents survivors of the Quebec City mosque, who also applauded the bill. That should count for a lot when we are making a decision.

There have been other shootings in Canada, and I am not sure if other groups support this bill. In Quebec, it is clear that the bill has the support of these groups. Does the fact that these people applaud the bill and want it passed count for anything for my colleague?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, number one, I do remember that tragedy. It is still fresh in my mind, the moment when I heard the news about what happened. It is a tragedy, but I also would like to point out that there is an opportunity to have an open conversation about motivating factors and what the motivating factors are for people who illegally use firearms. That is not being addressed in this bill, so I find that tragic as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent a lot of time with the member in committee, and I really appreciate his feedback and his thoughtful presentation tonight. I know there has been a lot of intimate partner violence, and we know more and more we are seeing guns used in this. When we look at domestic violence and intimate partner violence, this is a growing concern. I am just wondering if he has any suggestions about what the government needs to do to approach these issues and to make sure that we keep people safe in these situations.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member a very happy summer and look forward to working with her again in the fall, if we have that opportunity, in the committee.

Domestic violence is obviously a tragic thing that happens, and I am very sad that it does happen, but again, we need to focus on what drives and motivates. We are talking about gangs and what motivates people getting into gangs. That is a challenge, because they have a sense of hopelessness. They feel like they are not part of something. That is not being addressed. All the recommendations that have come forward are not being addressed in this bill.

Just doing something to look like something is being done does not solve the problem. We need to address the root of this problem, so I just ask that we vote this down and give it an other opportunity to actually address the real concerns within our country.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5, the soft-on-crime bill, actually allows for lesser sentences for those who commit crimes with guns. I was wondering how the hon. member can reconcile what he sees in Bill C-21 with this soft-on-crime approach by the Liberal government.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely disappointed. I am disappointed that we seem to be soft on punishing those who have committed horrendous crimes, yet punish lawful firearms owners. I cannot reconcile that, and I just find it absolutely crazy. I think that is a very good question. There is a huge gap and divide in this bill that we are not addressing. We have an opportunity to actually do that at this point in time, but the Liberals have shut that down.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill, and I will start with a confession. I am surprised to find myself agreeing with many of the criticisms expressed by Conservative members. This does not happen very often when it comes to firearms.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-21 and will obviously try to improve it in committee. However, it does not address any of the current problems that are affecting cities, particularly Montreal. There is nothing in the bill to address the shootings on our city streets that are scaring our children. This is very serious.

The bill puts a freeze on the acquisition of new legal handguns. This is good and might help, but these weapons represent barely 5% of the weapons used in violent crimes. According to Montreal's police service, the SPVM, 95% of the handguns used in violent crimes are illegal. Bill C‑21 contains nothing more than a few watered-down measures to tackle this problem.

Where are the measures to increase resources for border services so they can curb the trafficking of illegal weapons? Where are the additional patrols? I know that I repeat this often, but I would like to remind the House that the Government of Quebec recently provided $6 million to increase patrols in the Akwesasne area.

The federal government is nowhere to be found. It must propose something to tackle this issue, whether it is resources, money, a special task force, I do not know. The bill does nothing to deal with the violent crimes currently being committed in our cities.

We are faced once more with a government that claims to be doing something and tries to give the impression that it is taking action while actually doing very little. Ideally, the longer it can make this last, the more satisfied it is, because it can repeat 100 promises three or four times in different election campaigns.

I am going to take the example of assault weapons, which can fire ammunition at insane speeds and which no one needs in real life. These weapons are a problem. The current government claims that it has already done its job by prohibiting them. It often repeats this claim in its speeches, saying that it is a good thing.

In reality, in May 2020, the government cobbled together a list seemingly at random, containing several models of weapons whose names seemed to have been picked out of a hat. Then the government declared that those weapons were prohibited. However, similar models that are just as or even more dangerous continue to be legal. This approach pushed the manufacturers of these weapons to adapt and develop other models since then.

We need to work intelligently, and for that to happen, the government needs to listen to the opposition once in a while. The opposition is not always right, but it often is right, and it makes good suggestions.

For example, we said that there was no need to make a list of weapons, but that we should consult experts and define what an assault weapon is. Once the legal framework is established, if a weapon fits in this framework, it will be banned and considered illegal, no matter what weapons manufacturers invent five or 10 years from now. That seems so logical to me, so I do not understand—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. The member for Perth—Wellington on a point of order.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member speaking, but we are hearing reports from certain members that the Zoom application may not be working correctly. I am seeking guidance from the Table and from the Chair as to whether there is a problem with the network.

There are indications that people are not able to log on to the system.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for the intervention. We will continue to investigate what is going on.

We will continue for now. I would ask members to inform the Chair if there are technical problems with the interpretation or with our Zoom system.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, do I start over or continue where I left off?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member has at least 30 seconds.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I do not understand why the government does not work with the opposition to table bills that will really make a difference.

I was talking about a definition for an assault weapon. That is important. Taking action is a Bloc proposal. We have a lot of proposals like that. Every time I rise, I am thrilled to list the Bloc's intelligent and well-thought-out proposals. I often sound brilliant when I do that, but our extraordinary research team really deserves a lot of credit.

Then there is organized crime. The people shooting at each other in Montreal are organized. They are in a gang. They want to eliminate the other gang and take over the neighbourhood. We have all watched plenty of movies and can imagine what motivates them to go and shoot someone in a restaurant, in front of children. The tragedy is that this is not a movie on Netflix. This really happens. We do not have to accept that.

As elected members of the federal Parliament, it is not only our duty but our moral obligation to act on this. We are debating Bill C‑21, which will affect 5% of the firearms being used. It is a small step forward, but it does not address the real problems. Lately, during almost every question period, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord has been asking the Minister of Public Safety when he will create a list of recognized criminal entities.

Something similar exists for terrorist groups. It gives police something to work with. It gives prosecutors tools. It makes it easier to bring people to justice. We control the laws. We have the freedom to do that.

Why not give ourselves this gift? I do not understand. Who are we afraid of? Those are the questions we need to be asking ourselves.

We are dealing with a government that will go to the media and say it is taking action on guns by passing Bill C-21, when really, the bill does absolutely nothing. I can say this because every time my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord sits down after a question in question period, that is the answer he gets. He is told every time that the government has introduced Bill C-21 and that it hopes the Bloc Québécois will support its passage. Of course the Bloc Québécois is going to vote in favour, but we need more than that. We need to tackle the root cause of the problem.

We are dealing with a government that is all about image. It does not care about tackling problems. Just look at the passport crisis we are currently facing. That is the perfect example. How long have we been talking about that? Can the government do something about it, put resources into it, open the offices on weekends?

The minister stands up and says that the offices are open on weekends, but people are telling me over the phone that the offices are not open on weekends. Then we are not supposed to get upset. For 10 years, we have been calling for employment insurance reform. What is happening? Nothing. Last fall, fathers still had to prove they were using food banks in order to get benefits. Cuts are still being made to the guaranteed income supplement. The Liberals are going to stop making cuts in July. The machine is too big. No one knows how to press the button without messing up the entire calculation. It is going to take another cheque. It is totally ridiculous. Despite the inflation we are seeing right now, the government refuses to increase the old age security pension. I could go on at length.

I asked a question about support for agriculture today. It has been more than a month since people from agricultural organizations proposed practical solutions. They are not asking for money to be thrown at them. They are showing up with a list of solutions. More than a month has gone by, and there is still no response. It is radio silence. The management of the border during the COVID‑19 pandemic is another issue. I could go on until midnight. Are we sitting until midnight? I am game.

Let us come back to the bill. This bill has positive elements. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary spoke about red-flag and yellow-flag provisions. We are aware of these provisions, and that is why we will support the bill. At the same time, there are contradictions. Bill C‑21 increases the sentence for gun traffickers in an attempt to impress the public, whereas Bill C‑5 reduces the sentences.

We say that we agree with reducing sentences, but this is not the time to reduce them for crimes committed with a firearm. The response is that, in any event, it does not change criminals' minds.

The same argument does not hold from one bill to the other, which I have a hard time understanding. Everyone in the Bloc Québécois is reaching out to the government. We want to crack down on real organized crime, the real criminals, the thugs who traffic firearms and terrorize our cities. There is work to do and we are prepared to do it. Until then, we will vote in favour of Bill C‑21 because it is a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a wide variety of issues. I am not allowed the time to address them all in the form of a question, but I do have a very basic question that I have posed before.

I am glad to see that Bloc members are going to be supporting this legislation. However, the degree to which they want to see the legislation pass and get to committee did surprise me earlier.

We know that the Conservatives flat out object to the legislation before us. They are going to battle the legislation. The only reason the bill will pass to committee is because the NDP agreed to have time allocated so that at least it could get out of second-reading stage.

Could the member explain why, if the Bloc members believe in handgun bans, they believed that it was not necessary to try to get the bill rushed to the committee stage? Otherwise, who knows when it would even get there?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is, quite simply, no. We are systematically opposed. We have supported time allocation in some very specific circumstances, but in general, we condemn the practice of wasting time with obstruction tactics on both sides of the House.

Both sides of the House share responsibility, since the government members do not have enough respect to consult with and talk to the opposition members. We learned today that the House is scheduled to sit until midnight again tomorrow, but the Bloc Québécois was not consulted. If the government wants us to collaborate, then it needs to show some respect.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for his speech.

The member talked about some of the issues that the government has been dealing with, and spoke in terms of illusion. I would suggest that, right now, we are a country in chaos. Even the most basic government services are being bungled by this government: passports, immigration, border issues at Roxham Road, the issues with Afghanistan and Ukraine, inflation, affordability and, not least, political interference, according to a news story that came to light today.

This is a complicated issue that requires complicated solutions. Is there any confidence, on the part of the member who just spoke, in the government's ability to deal with this issue effectively? The issue is guns, gangs, illegal criminals and the illegal importation of guns that are used for violent crimes. Does the member have any confidence in the government's ability to actually find an effective solution through Bill C-21, or is this simply smoke and mirrors and just another way of the government mishandling something?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit of a trick question that I got from the House leader of the official opposition about having confidence in the government, since he knows what I have to say.

In fact, it is disheartening. Right now, I do not have confidence in the government, but I am reaching out and I think it could be trusted. There needs to be a change in attitude and a collaborative effort, as was the case in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At that time, the government listened to the opposition's proposals. The opposition proposed some worthwhile measures, such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy. That was a Bloc Québécois proposal that had a major impact on the economy.

Our proposals to define assault weapons and create a list of criminal organizations could change lives, save the lives of many people, but the government needs to listen.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that legislative solutions alone are not enough without added resources at the border to fight illegal gun trafficking from the United States. In a June 2 article in Canada's National Observer, Sandy Garossino wrote that 75% of firearm fatalities were suicides committed by gun owners.

We talked about men's mental health just a week ago in the House, so we know men are much more likely to commit suicide than women. We know these suicides account for the vast majority of firearm fatalities. What are the member's thoughts on that?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, whom I hold in high esteem, for the quality of his speech and his thoughtful consideration. He is proving it again today.

When I mentioned the 95% figure earlier, I was referring to 95% of violent crimes committed on the streets of Montreal. We are not talking about the same statistics. I have not seen the statistic that 75% of suicides are committed with firearms. I will trust my colleague on the validity of that figure.

Of course that is an issue. Bill C-21 could contribute to some progress in that regard, since it will reduce the number of handguns in circulation, gradually and over time.

Beyond that, I think my colleague mentioned the key elements: mental health and resources. The day that society adequately funds health care, for instance, to focus on prevention rather than the cure, or band-aid solutions after the fact, we will be well on our way to solving these problems.

My question is fundamental. It is clear where I am going with this. I am still talking about those darn health transfers. Can we just get the money to take care of our people? Then we can invest in mental health or homelessness and we can make a difference. I am sure my colleague agrees with me.

The House resumed from June 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-21, the NDP-Liberals' most recent attempt to scapegoat law-abiding firearms owners and to trick the average Canadian into believing they are trying to improve public safety while doing absolutely no such thing.

If we looks at the balance of the government's agenda on public safety and justice, we see that Liberals seem content to undermine both of these departments and the essential institutions that support them. This is being done in order to virtue signal and play petty politics to the detriment of our entire society.

While this is deeply disappointing, it is hardly surprising. The government is light on substantive policy solutions and heavy on press conferences and so-called alternative facts.

Today additional details came to light about interference by the government and the Prime Minister in the investigation of the tragic mass murders in Nova Scotia in an attempt to create a narrative that would fit their political agenda. This is important, because it speaks to the foundation on which substantial parts of the Liberals' firearms policy rests, including parts of Bill C-21, the bill we are currently debating.

The Halifax Examiner reported yesterday that “RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki 'made a promise' to [the] Public Safety Minister...[at the time] and the Prime Minister’s Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed.”

To be clear, that former public safety minister is now the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness.

The article makes it clear that the commissioner was being pressured by the Prime Minister's Office and the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness to ensure that information was released that would help them politically, to the detriment of the ongoing investigation and potentially placing it in jeopardy.

As the Minister of Emergency Preparedness is a former police chief, we would expect better from him. However, maybe this is how he has always operated. This is a pattern of behaviour with this Prime Minister: He puts himself first, the Liberal Party second, his donors and insider friends third, and then if there is time and the chance for a really good photo op, he might try to do something that actually helps a few Canadians.

This is an example of the first two. The Prime Minister was willing to interfere with the ongoing police investigation in order to try to leverage a political edge. This used to be unimaginable, but given the Prime Minister's SNC-Lavalin track record, it is totally in line with his character. The way someone does one thing is the way that person does everything.

I want to read part of this article, because it is important and deserves to be heard in this place. Nova Scotia Superintendent Darren Campbell wrote about a meeting he had with Commissioner Lucki, stating:

The Commissioner was obviously upset. She did not raise her voice but her choice of words was indicative of her overall dissatisfaction with our work. The Commissioner accused us (me) of disrespecting her by not following her instructions. I was and remain confused over this. The Commissioner said she told Comms to tell us at H Division to include specific info about the firearms used by [the killer]….However I said we couldn’t because to do so would jeopardize ongoing efforts to advance the U.S. side of the case as well as the Canadian components of the investigation. Those are facts and I stand by them.

Those are the words of Superintendent Campbell.

I will add that every police officer carries with them an evidence notebook. I, as a former law enforcement officer back in the 1990s, still have today my evidence notebooks in case I need to recall facts about events that happened while I was on duty.

The article continues:

Campbell noted that Lucki went on at length and said she was “sad and disappointed” that he had not provided these details to the media. Campbell continued:

The Commissioner said she had promised the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister’s Office that the RCMP (we) would release this information. I tried to explain there was no intent to disrespect anyone however we could not release this information at this time. The Commissioner then said that we didn’t understand, that this was tied to pending gun control legislation that would make officers and the public safer. She was very upset and at one point Deputy Commissioner (Brian) Brennan tried to get things calmed down but that had little effect. Some in the room were reduced to tears and emotional over this belittling reprimand.

The article makes it clear that this was not the only way that the government interfered with this investigation and the release of information, by pressuring the commissioner to break agreed-upon protocols.

The article also attributes a quote to Lia Scanlan, communications director for the RCMP, that says, “The commissioner releases a body count that we don’t even have. She went out and did that. It was all political pressure. That is 100% the minister and the Prime Minister. And we have a Commissioner that does not push back.”

Those are the words of RCMP communications director Scanlan. It is deeply concerning that the commissioner would not push back against the government on this request, but it is completely and totally unacceptable that she should ever have had to. I can only surmise that she is all too familiar with what happens to women who speak truth to power to the Prime Minister and his underlings.

This is the foundation on which Bill C-21 was constructed: political pressure and interference with the RCMP, misinformation about the perpetrators of gun violence and naked political opportunism. The bill was also announced on the heels of an American tragedy, deliberately importing American political discourse into domestic Canadian policies. The Prime Minister seems to be confused about the impact of Canadian legislation on American society, of which there is virtually none.

Unless he is announcing his plan to run for president of the United States, he should start trying to address the issues that Canadians face, not American issues here in Canada.

The firearms regimes in our two countries, Canada and the United States, are completely different. It has been made clear that the mass murderer from Texas would not be able to get a gun in Canada. In most U.S. states, a 21-year-old American with no convictions could purchase a firearm and, in pretty much every state, carry it. In about half of them, they could carry concealed with limited regulations. That is not the reality in Canada.

I am a law-abiding firearms owner. In Canada, people need to take a firearms safety course, apply for a licence and submit to a background check, not only on the initial application but on every reapplication every five years, in which the RCMP can contact former conjugal partners. Then, they wait for that information to come back for a few months, and maybe then can go and purchase a firearm and abide by stringent safe storage and transport laws. That is the reality in Canada. Every day, my ability to continue to own or possess firearms is checked against the Canadian Police Information Centre’s database to ensure that I am still legally and lawfully able to.

If only the government of the day would spend that much time following up on people who are prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms, spend that much time policing our borders and making sure that the people on our borders had the tools and equipment that they needed, and spend that much time in this chamber actually focused on criminals who commit crimes: they shoot guns in our urban centres, in our communities and in our rural areas and have no respect for the law and no respect for human life.

That is not the case with the 2.1 million law-abiding Canadian firearms owners. In fact, the data clearly says the opposite. If we are going to be harmed by somebody in the country with a firearm, the vast majority of that harm is coming from somebody who is not licensed to have the firearm in the first place.

Every gun in this country is illegal unless it is in the possession of somebody licensed to have it. We have the best firearms laws in the world, and I will put that up against the record of any other country.

It is shameful that the government is importing U.S. politics into Canada to sell misinformation to the voters of this country and disenfranchise law-abiding Canadian citizens.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a comment before I get to the question. There are times that we will disagree, regardless of what side of the House we sit on, but the member opposite turned his comments to try and slander and disingenuously try to harm the reputation of a former police officer, namely now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. I would ask the member to withdraw his statement about the member's character and apologize to the House for doing so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually do genuinely appreciate my colleague. We have spent lots of time working together in a constructive fashion on the fisheries committee, and I believe him to be an individual of solid character. I would simply suggest something to him, given the fact and the track record of the government that he has been supporting here all the while. If he wants to provide some solace to the House, I would humbly ask him to go and have a tête-à-tête with the Minister of Emergency Preparedness to make darn sure, before he asks somebody to apologize in the House, that he has all of the actual facts.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, there are a lot of good points in this bill. However, the weapons involved in all these incidents that keep happening in Montreal are weapons that have crossed the border illegally.

It turns out that people are buying these weapons, and the people buying them are members of criminal groups. Police services need to have the tools to take action against these groups.

That is why, for weeks, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the Minister of Public Safety to create a registry of criminal organizations, much like the one we have for terrorist organizations, so that we can target these people and take action against them.

The Montreal police have confirmed that 95% of the handguns used recently in these incidents in Montreal were illegal.

Can my colleague tell me why the minister has, so far, refused to establish such a registry?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent idea and worthy of debate in the House. I look forward to my colleague in the Bloc Québécois tabling a private member's bill, or somebody in the House tabling a bill, to establish just such a thing.

As I said in my comments, I am checked as a law-abiding citizen every day to ensure that I am able to continue to legally possess firearms in this country, yet we do not have a system in this country that would keep track of people who are prohibited from having firearms because of their affiliation and association with criminal gang activities and prior convictions.

This government, through Bill C-71, now Bill C-5 before the House, would make it easier for criminals to be out on bail, to be out on parole and to have zero time served in jail. At the same time, the only people it would make life difficult for, when it comes to firearms, are law-abiding firearms owners in this country. It is shameful.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague for Red Deer—Lacombe about airsoft guns. I have heard from a number of constituents who enjoy playing airsoft, and they feel that the proposed restrictions go too far and would make it hard for them to participate in their sport. At the same time, Canada has very few regulations for airsoft guns. Other countries around the world have different solutions. Some of them require that the barrels be painted a bright colour such as pink or yellow. Orange might be a nice colour.

I wonder, if not the regulations in the bill, is there a reasonable regulation that the member would support?

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

Mr. Speaker, I represent constituents who also participate in airsoft activities. It is a small but important industry to those who take great enjoyment in it and have fun with it. It is great for exercise and a number of reasons. The fact that the Liberal government is actually not even differentiating between a toy gun and an actual firearm shows me just how little Liberals actually know or understand about actual firearms.

I would welcome any changes to this legislation that would extract those who legitimately want to use airsoft. If there are any mechanisms that are reasonable and make sense so that people who just want to go out and have a little bit of fun can continue to do so, they would have my support.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments concerning firearms. This is a very important issue for the majority of Canadians, and it is particularly important for my constituency, where public safety was recently identified as a top area of concern for our community.

All levels of government and numerous dedicated organizations in my riding of Surrey Centre have been working for many years to address gun violence and gang-related violence. Rates of gun violence have continued to rise since 2009, and violent offences that involve guns have increased by 81%. With so much news content from the United States available to Canadians, we hear daily reports of shootings in the United States. We do not want this constant exposure to desensitize us to the horrific, unspeakable tragedies that come from gun violence. As we know, Canada is not immune to that violence.

Too many communities across the country have grieved the loss of loved ones. École Polytechnique, Moncton, the mosque shooting in Quebec City, and Nova Scotia are only a few of many examples of violent acts with firearms that have occurred in Canada. These examples do not even cover the number of individuals who face gun violence on a regular basis due to domestic or intimate partner violence or gang-related activity.

According to Statistics Canada, there has been a notable increase in firearm-related violent crime across many rural areas in the country, and 47% of Canadians reported feeling that gun violence posed a serious threat to their communities. This includes my own community of Surrey Centre. Earlier this year, the RCMP in Surrey reported that, in a six-day span, there had been four incidents of shots fired in the city.

From my days in high school, I saw hundreds of young boys and men shot and killed for petty disputes and turf wars. Others will recall the innocent victims of gun violence who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Paul Bennett, a nurse and hockey coach, was killed outside his home in Surrey. Chris Mohan was shot for simply being on the same floor as a gangland hit. Bikramdeep Randhawa, a correctional officer, was killed outside of a McDonald's in another case of mistaken identity. These are all on top of hundreds of women killed in cases of domestic or intimate partner violence, including Maple Batalia, a young woman studying at Simon Fraser University, who was killed on campus by a jealous ex-boyfriend.

This is far too regular an occurrence and it puts our communities at risk of being caught in the crossfire. It is clear we need to do more to address gun violence in our communities. Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities, homes, schools and workplaces, and we do not want to wait for another tragedy to occur in Canada before we take strong action to address that violence.

We know that reducing access to firearms reduces the amount of gun violence. It is simple. Other countries around the world have essentially eliminated gun violence in their countries by enacting tougher laws. Scotland, Australia and New Zealand are all examples of this.

In 1996, a deadly shooting at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland killed 16 students and a teacher and injured 15 others. The following year, the U.K. Parliament banned private ownership of most handguns as well as semi-automatic weapons, and required mandatory registration for shotgun owners. The reforms required owners of permitted firearms to pass a strict licence process, which involves interviews and home visits by local police who have the authority to deny approval of permits if they deem the would-be owner a potential risk to public safety. In the last decade, there have only been three homicides by gun violence in the United Kingdom. There has never been another school shooting.

Also in 1996, in a shooting at a café in Port Arthur, Australia, a man opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle. He killed 35 people and wounded another 28. Australia's then new prime minister, John Howard, who had taken office only six weeks prior to the tragedy, led a sweeping nationwide reform on guns following the incident. Australia's National Firearms Agreement restricted legal ownership of firearms in Australia. It established a registry of all guns owned in the country, among other measures. It required a permit for all new firearms purchases, as well as a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

Similar to our own government's plan, the Australian government has established a mandatory buyback of legal and illegal guns resulting in 650,000 formerly legally owned guns being peacefully seized. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia, in the seven years after the bill, declined by 57% compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by nearly 42%. Between 1978 and 1995, 13 mass shootings occurred in the country. In the years since those mass shootings, Australians brought in sweeping gun reform, and since 1995 there has only been one mass shooting.

New Zealand has traditionally had a high gun ownership rate, but tight restrictions and low rates of gun violence. In less than the two weeks after a far right extremist killed 50 people at a mosque in 2019, authorities in New Zealand announced a ban on military-style semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines, like those the attacker had used. They also created a buyback program, as well as a special commission to explore broader issues around the accessibility of weapons and the role of social media.

Gun ownership in Canada is the fifth highest in the world. The countries I have mentioned, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand, are like Canada in that they all have a strong culture of guns. Despite this, they have successfully reduced the number of gun-related incidents and saved countless lives through comprehensive reforms and policies that address the complexity of gun violence.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recently tabled a report entitled, “A Path Forward: Reducing Gun and Gang Violence in Canada”. The committee heard from 50 witnesses who echoed the same message: Gun violence is a complex issue that will take more than one program or policy to fix. The committee heard that it will take a multi-faceted and comprehensive approach that includes all levels of government, indigenous peoples, grassroots organizations, law enforcement and social services. It will require research, collection of data, and preventative and intervention measures.

Our government is committed to addressing gun violence, and we will continue to take action in an effort to mitigate the senseless tragedies that occur at the hands of firearms, and this legislation is the next step.

For those who say illegal guns smuggled across the border are the ones that we should be concerned about, they should have spoken up when the Harper Conservatives cut CBSA staff by 30%, or when they disbanded and defunded the major organized crime unit in the RCMP that investigated cross-border smuggling. How were they silent then? Are they silent now, when it comes to reducing gun violence? The story is the same.

We re-funded the CBSA and the RCMP, and the proof is in the pudding, with gun seizures at the border being double last year from the year prior.

Our plan to address gun violence will address this complexity. Bill C-21 will establish a national freeze on handguns; establish red flag and yellow flag laws; expand licence revocation; combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, notably by increasing the maximum penalty; and prohibit mid-velocity replica airguns.

This plan is about the survivors and about communities across Canada from coast to coast to coast, which are too often touched by gun violence. Canadians told us they wanted to see more action, more quickly, and we are doing that through our commitment to do more.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments, specifically with respect to firearms. I know that there has been a lot said about this bill and how it would impact Canadians. I know that there have been some unfortunate comments that, in my opinion, do not exactly reflect what is in this bill, so I will use the opportunity today to try to highlight exactly what this bill would do.

First and foremost, this bill would establish a national freeze on handguns. Individuals would no longer have the ability to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns. This is extremely reasonable in today's society with what we are seeing going on not just outside of our borders in the United States, but also as we have actually witnessed here in Canada. We know that for the vast majority of those who are looking to harm individuals and utilize a gun for an illegal purpose, the weapon of choice is a handgun, and it is extremely important to ensure that there is a restricted ability for people to access these.

There would be exemptions, and there are exemptions in the bill, that ensure that those who require a weapon for security or policing purposes, etc., would obviously be exempt for those reasons. They would be able to make purchases for those reasons.

We also know that a certain number of people out there enjoy using a handgun for sport: for shooting at a range or in various ways. They utilize that. Although it might be more challenging to access a handgun in order to continue using it for that purpose, this bill certainly makes it known that this is not about attempting to regulate those individuals or prevent those individuals from utilizing a handgun for that purpose. In many cases, for sport, those individuals would not be impacted.

This bill would also establish red flag and yellow flag laws to expand the licence revocation process when it is deemed necessary in the right context.

The bill would also combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, notably by increasing the maximum penalty of imprisonment for indictable weapons offences. This is extremely important to reference because this, along with the mandatory minimum sentences bill that the House has also been debating in the past few weeks, is a talking point for Conservatives, with respect to minimum sentences being dropped primarily because the Supreme Court has determined that to be a necessity. Because those are being dropped, the Conservatives are suggesting that the government is being more lenient on those who commit certain crimes that would have otherwise been, and currently would be, regulated by mandatory minimums.

It is actually the opposite, because although the government does feel that when it comes to sentencing, judges should be the ones who are determining what sentencing is, we also recognize that for some of these indictable offences, particularly those around weapons, we would be giving greater sentencing capacity to change that maximum sentence from 10 years to 14 years. Indeed, when judges find it appropriate to increase the sentence even further, they would be given more capacity to do that.

Of course, as indicated by other people who spoke before me, there is a provision within this bill to prohibit mid-velocity replica airguns. The reasons for that are quite notable, despite the fact that we have heard some conversation about the fact that different sporting activities might from time to time require these airguns.

It is very important to point out that this bill, at least in my opinion, is not about targeting law-abiding gun owners.

Most of my uncles in particular either own hunting lodges, where they hunt with their friends and families, or have been participating as hunters for generations, quite frankly. On my wife's side of the family, my father-in-law grew up on a hunting and fishing lodge. I am quite familiar with the needs and requirements of hunters specifically, and I must admit I have never heard one of them talk about the need to use a handgun or an AR-15 for the purpose of hunting.

What we are really trying to do here is curb the use of guns for illegal purposes: for the shootings we have seen in our country and continue to witness in the United States to the south of us. That is what the issue really is here.

I know the default, and quite often used, excuse from the other side of the House is to ask why we are not going after those who are trying to bring the guns across the border, because a significant number of guns that are used in criminal activity are coming from across the border.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I like my gun.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is the default reaction we hear from the Conservatives and continue to, literally as I speak right now. I am being heckled by them.

If one believes nothing else about—

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I like my handgun the best; that's my favourite.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order, please.

I want to remind the hon. member who is heckling the parliamentary secretary that if he happens to have comments or questions he should wait until it is questions and comments time. There will be five minutes for questions and comments, and the official opposition will have the first question. I would ask him to wait until then because it is not respectful to be doing what he is doing at the moment.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the member wants, I would be happy to accept a unanimous consent motion to double my question time to 10 minutes, and then I could make sure I get to all the questions the Conservatives want to ask me. I would be more than happy to do that.

What I was getting at is that if one does not believe in anything else, they should just look at the data that is out there. The countries that have the stricter gun laws are the countries that have fewer shootings. If one considers no other information than that plain and simple fact, one is left trying to decide whether the trade-off is deemed acceptable. Do we want stricter gun laws that result in fewer gun fatalities and homicides in particular? The data also shows there is a significant decrease in police officers who are killed in the line of duty by somebody who uses a gun on them.

For me, that trade-off is pretty simple. Do we have to make things more restrictive in order to save more lives? All we have to do is look to the countries that have been quite successful in this. Other people have mentioned them throughout the debate today. The trade-off is quite simple for me. I am more interested in saving lives than preserving individuals' opportunity to hold on to and carry a firearm.

I respect the fact that there are others on the other side of the House whose tolerance for that risk is different from mine. It is just a reality that we have differing opinions on this. However, I will stand firmly in my position that I do not see the need for handguns to be on our streets or to be held on to, or that people need to have a handgun. I do not personally see the reason for it.

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

I will leave it at that. If the member wants to put forward a unanimous consent motion to get me to answer twice as many questions, I would be happy to do that to make sure I can answer all those Conservative questions out there.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader indicated in his speech that he did not believe this bill would negatively impact law-abiding gun owners. I would take a little exception to that. As a licence-holder for restricted firearms, I know this would very negatively affect law-abiding gun owners.

I am wondering why the member cannot see how the bill would do that and, at the same time, I am hoping that his position in his speech does not put him offside with his family members.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will address the last part first. I think what puts me offside with my family members more is the rhetoric that comes from the lobbying groups and, quite frankly, to be honest, the Conservatives. It is not until I have the opportunity to correct that information with my family members that they then seem to be much more at ease.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member can disagree with me, but I am saying how my family interacts with me, and that is just the reality of the situation.

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

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we fully agree that we need better gun control. However, I would like to make a brief comment: We also have to control the border, because illegal weapons are coming across it, which is a problem.

The way the bill is currently drafted, even airsoft players, who use air guns like paintball guns, will be banned from playing their sport. These are people who are very respectful of safety measures, but they will no longer be able to play, even though airsoft guns cause no injury, other than bruises.

Would my colleague be open to proposing amendments in committee on this matter?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always open to hearing ideas about how a bill can be amended to make it better. I have participated in paintballing myself. I am quite familiar with what the guns look like. The ones that are specifically referenced in the bill are replicas. A typical paintball gun used for recreational purposes outside of intense sport have a big barrel for the paintballs. It is quite clear that it is not a replica, at least in my opinion, but I would love to explore this more at committee.

As to the first point when the member talked about the border, I would say that we have done two significant things since coming into power. The first is that we recommitted and put money into securing our borders by investing in the CBSA officers the previous Conservative government had eliminated. The second is that this bill would change the maximum sentence for those indictable offences from 10 years to 14 years. We are putting a stricter sentence on those who choose to participate in that criminal activity.

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

Madam Speaker, I will ask a question similar to what my colleague asked about the airsoft guns. In my riding, there are some small businesses owners who sell those airsoft rifles, and they are really concerned about what is going to happen to their business. I would like to know what the government did to consult with some of these small business owners, and if the bill moves forward and the legislation is not changed, what they will do to ensure that those small businesses are able to continue to do business.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not write the bill, so I do not know exactly what the consultative process has been up to this point, but what I do know is that the next stage of this bill is in committee, where the committee could do a lot of that consultative process and perhaps come up with some solutions and ideas. There is the idea her colleague mentioned in the House earlier about making it a requirement that the tip of the gun be painted a certain colour. I would argue that a nice, bright red would be better than orange, as suggested by her colleague earlier, but, nonetheless, I am sure there are opportunities out there to help improve the bill.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-21. My Conservative colleagues have already laid out some of the bill's content and really the false narrative the Liberals have tried to advance in trying to pass this bill.

We know there is a significant crime problem in many of our urban centres, especially in those where we have seen a rise in shootings and gun crime. We also know that illegal weapons are the real problem. In the city of Toronto, the police have clearly stated that in over 85% of crimes involving a firearm in that city the weapons were smuggled in illegally from the United States. As a matter of fact, CBC reported that municipalities across the country report very similar stats. It said that, depending on the municipality, between 70% and 95% of all guns used in the commission of a crime have been imported from the United States.

The stats clearly prove that very few crimes were committed by those who are legally permitted to own them, who are the real targets of Bill C-21. Members will notice the Liberals never share that data. They never say that legal gun owners are not the problem because that is the group of people they like to target. They want to have Canadians believe that legal gun owners are the problem, are scary and need to be eliminated. They are stating in this bill that they want to see an end to the trading of these guns.

It is important that Canadians know that anybody who owns a weapon that is addressed in this bill has gone through extensive training and background checks, and the stats clearly indicate they are not the problem when it comes to crime in our cities. The Liberals have been fabricating a narrative that is completely hypocritical when we see what they have done. Bill C-21 does next to nothing to deal with smuggled firearms or target the criminals who import, sell and use them.

What makes the Liberals even more hypocritical is the fact that they have a bill to deal with these criminals, which is Bill C-5. In that bill the Liberals are reducing the mandatory minimum imprisonments for criminals who are involved in the following crimes: unauthorized possession of prohibited or restricted weapons; possession of prohibited or restricted firearms with ammunition; possession of firearms obtained by commission of an offence; firearms trafficking; possession of firearms for the purposes of trafficking; and knowingly importing and exporting an unauthorized firearm. They are reducing the penalties for the people who are actually the problem when it comes to gun crime in this country. It is clear to see the Liberals have no interest in dealing with the real problem, taking illegal weapons off of our streets.

As if we needed any additional evidence that the Liberal government would go to disturbing lengths to advance its own political agenda, in breaking news just yesterday afternoon we learned that the Liberals would jeopardize the independence of the institution of the RCMP for their political interests. The evidence in the report that was released included some of the scariest evidence of how low the government will go and how many boundaries it will break to advance its own political agenda. The Halifax Examiner exposed the rot that exists in the government and the manipulation it expects from the highest levels of what should be an independent trusted public institution.

The headline screams, “RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki tried to 'jeopardize' mass murder investigation to advance [the Prime Minister's] gun control efforts”. In her report, Jennifer Henderson stated:

RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki “made a promise” to Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and the Prime Minister's Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed.

A week after the murders, Lucki pressured RCMP in Nova Scotia to release details of the weapons used by the killer. But RCMP commanders in Nova Scotia refused to release such details, saying doing so would threaten their investigation into the murders.

The Trudeau government’s gun control objectives were spelled out in an order in council issued in May 2020....

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect you might be thinking I am rising to say that the member is stating mistruths on the record, but that is not it. The member has made reference to the Prime Minister by using his name, and we are not allowed to use the name of the Prime Minister or any other member.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the member that, in the House of Commons, he is not to use the names of current sitting members, the Prime Minister or ministers. They have to be referred to by their titles.

The hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was quoting, and I do apologize because I know that, even while quoting, I am not allowed to use the member's names.

The member is correct. He confirmed that I am not spreading misinformation. He has confirmed that, in fact, this is truth, so I am going to continue reading. The article continues:

The...government's gun control objectives were spelled out in an order in council issued in May 2020, and [the legislation codifying them] were encapsulated in Bill C-21, which was tabled last month, but the concern in April 2020 was the extent to which politics threatened to interfere with a cross-border police investigation into how the killer managed to obtain and smuggle into Canada four illegal guns used to commit many of the 22 murders.

Now I am going to jump a little bit further ahead in the report to the part where RCMP commanders in Nova Scotia refused to release details they thought would compromise their investigation. Jennifer Henderson writes:

April 28, 2020 — just one week after the murders...Nova Scotia Supt. Darren Campbell briefed journalists at a news conference....

On the firearms question, Campbell told journalists he “couldn't get into details... because the investigation is still active and ongoing,” except to confirm the gunman had several semi-automatic handguns and two semi-automatic rifles.

Shortly after the news conference Campbell, Asst. Commander Lee Bergerman, Leather, and Nova Scotia Communications director Lia Scanlan were summoned to a meeting. RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki and a deputy from Ottawa were on the conference call. Lucki was not happy.

Let me quote that again: “Lucki was not happy.”

The article then continues:

Campbell’s handwritten notes made immediately following that meeting describe what happened:

“The Commissioner was obviously upset. She did not raise her voice but her choice of words was indicative of her overall dissatisfaction with our work. The Commissioner accused us (me) of disrespecting her by not following her instructions. I was and remain confused over this. The Commissioner said she told Comms to tell us at H Division to include specific info about the firearms used by [the killer]....However I said we couldn’t because to do so would jeopardize ongoing efforts to advance the U.S. side of the case as well as the Canadian components of the investigation. Those are facts and I stand by them.”

Campbell noted that Lucki went on at length and said she was “sad and disappointed” that he had not provided these details to the media. Campbell continued:

“The Commissioner said she had promised the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister’s Office that the RCMP...would release this information. I tried to explain there was no intent to disrespect anyone however we could not release this information at this time. The Commissioner then said that we didn’t understand, that this was tied to pending gun control legislation that would make officers and the public safer. She was very upset and at one point Deputy Commissioner (Brian) Brennan tried to get things calmed down but that had little effect. Some in the room were reduced to tears and emotional over this belittling reprimand.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up. I have been trying to give him a signal. He does have five minutes of questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' back room is working hard. They have the new spin going on in regard to the whole issue of guns. Wherever they can get personal and start attacking, that is what they are going to do.

That is what we have heard for the last five or six minutes from the member. It is just comments attacking the integrity of the system. I will stand by the RCMP. I support the RCMP. The minister has been very clear on the RCMP, but the member does not let the facts cause issues.

In the legislation, there is the issue of yellow flags and red flags, an area that I think the vast majority of Canadians, and I suspect even some Conservatives, would support. What is the member's opinion on the value of having the red flags and yellow flags in the legislation?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is a Liberal member again trying to spread information that is not complete. The member opposite knows that the system currently has a flagging system for guns that are legally held. Those people who have gone through robust security checks, those who have gone through training programs, have to relinquish their guns if, in fact, they are flagged. That exists today.

The government can put a new name on the flagging system, or put a colour on it, but the fact is that it exists today, and the members opposite know that they have been playing politics with this entire issue since the very beginning. The member claims that I am making this up or that the back rooms of the Conservative Party are making this stuff up. It is printed in every newspaper in this country currently.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The government says it wants to reduce gun violence by introducing Bill C‑21, but the Montreal police service tells us that 95% of handguns used in violent crimes come from the black market.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks the government is doing enough to fight violence committed with illegal weapons. Is it doing enough at the borders, for example? Is Bill C‑21 sufficient?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is the real tragedy, that the Liberals would use the tragedy of the murders of 22 Nova Scotians, innocent civilians in many cases, to advance this agenda. All of the guns that were included in that were illegal weapons—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I ruled on this a while ago on the official opposition side. The hon. parliamentary secretary has been in this House for some time, and he knows that he should not be heckling or trying to ask questions while someone is already answering a question.

The hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what has happened. The Liberals have tried to shut it down every time the facts get in the way of their good story, their spin. That is the incredible heartbreak of what they did with the RCMP, where they instructed the commissioner to go out there and release information, compromising an investigation.

In fact, the four guns that were found were illegally owned and had come across the border illegally. That is what we should be tackling. Instead, the Liberals are passing legislation to reduce sentences for people who are trafficking in illegal weapons, and going after law-abiding gun owners.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know that in most violence in intimate partner relationships, in terms of murders, there is the use of handguns. I am wondering what the Conservative Party would do, if anything, to put in stricter laws for handguns to make sure that women, in particular, are safer.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague brings up a very important point. I think she misspoke when she suggested that the vast majority of domestic abuse involves firearms. I do not believe that statistic is correct.

I do believe protocols exist for those people who have been flagged as risks, those who have demonstrated a compromised mental capacity and those who have demonstrated that they should not be in possession of a firearm. I believe in and support a flagging system that gets those firearms confiscated from people who have demonstrated that they should no longer have them.

Obviously, we do need to get serious about domestic violence in this country. We do have to get serious about the importation of illegal weapons, and that is what we would like to do on this side of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the subamendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. official opposition House leader.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Thursday, June 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C‑21.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #172

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. government whip.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish all Quebeckers a happy national holiday tomorrow. I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberal members voting against.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply and will be voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the results of the previous vote and will be voting against.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply and will be voting nay.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the results of the previous vote and will be voting against.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote, and will be voting against.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #173

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. government whip.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, warm best wishes to you and all colleagues.

I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the results of the previous vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to the application of the vote and will be voting yes.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote and will be voting in favour.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #174

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)