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

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

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding neglect of vulnerable adults, and I want to thank the member for Alfred-Pellan for seconding the bill.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed clear evidence of abuse of seniors in care facilities across the country. With the lack of appropriate care and protection, as well as negligence and failure to follow accepted protocols, this situation resulted in appallingly high rates of COVID transmission in many long-term care facilities and led to increased mortality rates.

This bill aims to prevent a recurrence of those tragic outcomes by creating an offence for owners and managers of adult care facilities who fail to provide due care in accordance with accepted protocols and who are negligent in their duty to provide the necessities for a good quality of life. It would also allow courts to make an order prohibiting the owners and managers of such facilities from being in charge of or in a position of trust or authority toward vulnerable adults and to consider, as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing, the fact that an organization failed to perform the legal duty that it owed to a vulnerable adult.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Bill C-21—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. opposition House leader.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are seeing the hammer drop. It is on Bill C-21 this time, which further strengthens our resolve. You and I are unfortunate to have a front row seat to the further decline in democracy in this place and another attack on the institution of Parliament.

There has been three hours and 24 minutes of debate on this bill, which is a very substantive bill. Just last week, the Conservatives made an offer to the government: split the bill so we can work on portions of it that we can support, such as domestic violence and other matters within the bill. That was rejected by the government.

This bill would do nothing to solve gun and gang criminal activity in this country. This past weekend there were seven shootings in Liberal-held ridings just in Toronto. Instead of dealing with the situation, what the Liberals are doing is further traumatizing, stigmatizing and dividing Canadians through a bill by not offering to work and do the right thing.

My question for the minister is this. Is it true that, for the purposes of further dividing, stigmatizing and wedging, and using this bill as a politicized weapon, the Liberals have earmarked almost $1 million for an ad campaign in the summer to target opposition parties that are looking to better this bill as opposed to oppose it?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I have personal respect for my colleague. He knows that, and I would like to think we reciprocate that. Unfortunately, I do not respect his position on this particular motion.

The reason why we are taking this step is betrayed by the way in which he has characterized the bill, which is that Bill C-21 would not be helpful in reducing gun violence. That is categorically untrue. In particular, I would point his attention to the fact that the bill, among other things, would raise maximum sentences against illegal gun smugglers. He seems not to take any particular note of that. He also does not address the fact that it was his party, sadly, that sought to filibuster this debate, consistent with the posture that the Conservative Party has taken on any number of important questions and matters of priority for Canadians, whether it is on the economy, on health or on the environment. Conservatives are always blocking debate. We want to advance debate.

This debate will now move to committee, where there will be more study of Bill C-21, which would help ensure that we protect Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it is not a question of whether we are for or against Bill C-21. We know that the bill is not perfect, but it is important.

This is about how the Liberal government has managed its legislative agenda. To be frank, honest and sincere, it has been a complete disaster. I have never seen a legislative agenda managed like this. We are meeting again today and we will likely sit until late on Thursday because we do not have the right people on that side of the House to manage the legislative agenda effectively. It is not the opposition's fault. It is not the fault of the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois or the NDP. It is the government's fault. They keep imposing closure because they are unable to manage their legislative agenda properly.

The fact that we have gotten to this point, today, is serious. The government could have tabled its notice of motion on the weekend, but what we are seeing here is the government's inefficiency across all departments and in managing the legislative agenda.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I share my hon. colleague's concerns, because there have been far too many tragedies related to gun violence, not only in Quebec, but across the country. That is exactly why we urgently need to deal with the situation.

The Conservatives are the ones who have been engaging in obstruction tactics. It is unacceptable. There is a lot of support, I hope, from the Bloc and the other opposition parties, like the NDP, for debating this bill and moving forward with a constructive discussion. However, we must manage the situation, and the only way we can move this debate forward is through the committee's fine work. It is important to ensure the safety of the Canadian public.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have said this before: We have two bloc parties in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party. The Conservative Party has been systematically blocking everything over the course of the last few months, refusing to let through even bills that people are looking for. We are talking about teachers looking for tax credits. We have been besieged by letters throughout the course of the last few months. The Conservatives have said that nothing is going to pass at all. They do not even want bills to go to committee for improvements or, when they do go to committee, for amendments to be considered. It has been absolute chaos because of the Conservatives.

Why have the Conservatives wanted to block everything? Why would they not seek to go to committee so that we could hear from witnesses?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for putting his finger precisely on the problem in his chamber, which is that there is one party, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada, that continues to obstruct on public safety, the economy, health and the environment. Rather than embracing the debate, which is the hallmark of our democracy in this chamber, what we see instead is relentless tactics to filibuster and postpone debate.

What we have before us is a bill that would help us advance the fight against gun violence. I would certainly urge the Conservatives to embrace the opportunities that would manifest in the committee stage, where we could look at Bill C-21 and hopefully find some common ground on addressing handgun violence, addressing organized crime, and addressing the connections between domestic abuse and gun violence. That debate will continue there.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my counterpart from the Bloc Québécois talk about managing the legislative calendar.

However, managing the parliamentary calendar depends on the good faith of all parties and their willingness to not systematically block bills, such as Bill C‑8, which helped us provide assistance to Canadians in this pandemic and inflationary environment.

I would also like to point out to my friends and colleagues in the Bloc Québécois that Quebeckers support additional measures to control firearms, handguns and assault weapons. The Minister of Public Safety is advocating for these measures, and I invite him to tell us again why we should hear from Quebeckers and Canadians on this issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before recognizing the Minister of Public Safety, I would like to remind members that there are more than 20 minutes remaining for questions and comments. I ask members to wait their turn to ask their question or share their comments.

The hon. Minister of Public Safety.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. Strengthening our efforts in the context of the fight against gun violence is a priority for Quebec. That is why I am in constant contact with my Quebec counterparts, including Minister Guilbault, Mayor Plante in Montreal, and Mayor Marchand in Quebec City, who all support the bill.

Everyone understands that this is a step in the right direction. I want to work with the Bloc Québécois and with all the members to better protect our communities.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been talking with law enforcement officials from across my riding about the bill, and they have some serious reservations. We know that when the minister enacted the Emergencies Act, he said that he had advice from law enforcement officials to enact it, but in the meantime we found out that was actually false.

I want to ask the minister whether he has received advice from law enforcement on whether the bill is actually practical, and if he has, whether he could share with the House who it is that he received this advice from.

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

Madam Speaker, I am all too happy to answer my hon. colleague's question. Among other branches, of course we are in the midst of consulting with law enforcement at the federal level with the RCMP. However, we saw the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents the most senior levels and executive levels of law enforcement, say that Bill C-21 would be a step in the right direction toward better protecting our communities. Of course, that in no way diminishes the fact that we need to debate the bill and study the bill.

The problem with my hon. colleague's position is that her party has stood in the way of debate. It is her party that is standing in the way of the free speech that should be exercised in studying the bill.

We want to pass the bill so we can deal with gun violence and better protect our communities. I would hope that my colleague would embrace that effort.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier my NDP colleague said that there is the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party, in other words, the Conservatives. What he forgot to say is that in politics the primary principle is to establish a balance of power. Since the marriage between the NDP and the Liberal Party that balance of power no longer exists.

That leads my colleague from Mirabel to believe that the New Democrats are spending so much time at the Liberals' feet that they are going to get oral thrush. It is quite dangerous.

On Bill C‑21 in particular, we have seen many proposals from the member for Rivière-du-Nord, and we know that the main problem is the illegal guns. We will not be able to discuss the matter, however, because of the closure motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague's statement that we need to study the bill. The problem is that the Conservatives continue to use tactics to create delays and pick fights, in an attempt to shut down debate. That is not good.

I hope we can work with the Bloc Québécois and even the NDP. The NDP understands that, through compromise and dialogue, we can make progress in the House. There is a sharing of ideas. Even the Bloc Québécois understands that we need to share ideas. I am always looking for solutions to strengthen Bill C‑21. However, the Conservatives need to stop with the nonsense. When they act like this on something that is such an important concern, their actions only hurt Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we saw this with Bill C-11: Conservatives blocking witnesses at committee, blocking the tabling of amendments, blocking systematically improvements that needed to come to Bill C-11. Fortunately, we were able to—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is very disrespectful to be calling members names, and I would ask the member to apologize for doing so.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize for disrupting the House and calling the member names.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, but, quite frankly, “sticks and stones”. We have seen the Conservatives' antics for the last six months and what they say does not bother me at all. What they do, though, does bother me, and this is what we saw at the committee level—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Sorry, we have a point of order.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

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

Madam Speaker, according to the rules, the number of questions is supposed to be according to the proportion of people in a given party and what they received in votes at election time, instead of just going party to party. Since there were more votes and more seats won by the Conservatives, we should be getting more questions rather than just merely going around in a circle.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is up to the Speaker to decide who speaks, and I am being fair. Members will see that certainly when it comes to the government, because it is its motion, the Liberals are getting fewer questions.

Returning to the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, hopefully the Conservatives will not interrupt a third or fourth or fifth time. It just proves my point of how disruptive they have been. They have abandoned their voters and come to the House and they just cause chaos. That is what they seem to think their role is, and it is tragic. We saw that at committee, and now they are blocking a bill that needs to go to committee for improvements. There is no doubt that there needs to be work done and witnesses need to be heard from.

Why are Conservatives refusing to have the legislative process that allows for due consideration for witnesses, for amendments and for improvements on a bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know why. I wish Canadians could get into the heads of some of the tactics that we have seen here in this chamber. We embrace the idea of having a very vigorous debate about how to better protect our communities from gun violence, but, instead, we saw on the first day that was scheduled for Bill C-21 that Conservatives filibustered and we have seen similar tactics at committee.

As my hon. colleague the leader for the NDP in this chamber pointed out, it is not just on the matters related to public safety. It is on matters related to creating jobs, improving the economy, dealing with climate change and dealing with priorities related to Health Canada. I do want to take a moment to thank the New Democrats for their efforts at making this chamber work, which is what the vast majority of Canadians are entitled to expect from us, especially on matters related to public safety.

[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.

The hon. minister has talked about the fact that we need to have resolute debate in this place, and here we have the antithesis of that, the cutting off of debate with the help of the government's coalition partners in the NDP. How does the minister reconcile the fact that Conservatives are more than prepared to address certain aspects of this bill and more than prepared to split the bill and put it forward on the areas we agree on? Constantly, we hear we cannot get things done because we are not agreeing on things. Here we are, prepared to agree, and it is the Liberals who are pushing that away. How does the minister reconcile that with his recent comments?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is saying, on the one hand, from his mouth to this chamber, that the Conservatives are prepared to work on certain elements of the bill and then, earlier this morning, we heard the House leader for the Conservative Party of Canada saying there is nothing in this bill that would protect Canadians. It is for that colleague to reconcile that logical inconsistency. Canadians expect better.

My hon. colleague, as a very accomplished, very intelligent individual member in this chamber, knows full well that the debate of Bill C-21 will continue at committee, where, of course, we embrace the exchange of ideas and potential improvements and amendments to the bill so we can better protect Canadians from the scourge of gun violence. I would urge the member to vote in support of this motion so that we can continue debate at committee.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am getting sick and tired of hearing the government call out the opposition for doing its job. The Liberal government has moved a series of closure motions in the past month and is now blaming the Conservatives and the Bloc for the lack of progress. The government cannot criticize the opposition for doing its job. It cannot criticize members on this side of the House for asking questions. The government keeps imposing closure because it cannot manage its own legislative agenda, even with the support of the NDP.

I listen to my NDP friends during question period, and I am not sure if they have noticed this, but no one listens to their questions anymore. No one is interested in what they have to say. They should give us their questions. Ever since they cozied up to the government, no one is interested in what they have to say. They criticize us for obstructing our work here, even though we are here to ask questions. That is what we have been doing since the beginning of this session.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion for the subject. On this side, we understand our responsibility, which is to protect all Canadians. That is exactly why we need to move forward with debate on this bill—to better protect Canadians across Canada, including Quebeckers. As a matter of fact, it was the Bloc that encouraged the government to take more action. We must take action. Debate on this bill is our opportunity to better protect all Canadians. That is our priority.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we need to talk about the question from the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. Obviously, Quebeckers are watching and listening to the NDP's questions, because we are seeing growing support in Quebec polls. As my colleagues know, if we had proportional representation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that, when time allocation is moved, it is an opportunity not for the NDP to defend its actions and the decisions it has made in this place, but rather an opportunity for the government to defend the shutting down of debate on a particular—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is more a point of debate.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bloc and Conservative members are so sensitive. It is incredible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Provencher on a point of order.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know it is at the discretion of the Chair, but it seems to me there are a lot of members who would like their opinions expressed here during this debate, and you keep deferring to the same member of the NDP. I think it is time to spread out the questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It depends upon who within the party gets up, so I would just indicate again that it is at the will of the Chair to recognize members.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. You do an excellent job. I know that it is not easy when there are parties that are blocking everything and that do not want to co-operate. You do an excellent job, and I thank you on behalf of all Canadians.

In my opinion, there is an unhealthy dynamic here. Some members are blocking everything. They do not want things to move forward. They do not want anything to be studied in committee. They do not want to hear from witnesses. They do not want any subamendments to be proposed and they do not want the bills to be improved.

I have a simple question for my colleague. Why are these parties refusing to improve the bills?

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

Madam Speaker, honestly, I do not have an answer to his question because what the government cares about is working with all members on one of the highest priorities for the country, and that is protecting all Canadians. Even in Quebec, we are working on this bill with the mayor of Montreal, the mayor of Quebec City and my provincial government counterpart in a spirit of co-operation.

We want to continue the debate in committee. That is why we need to move forward in a spirit of co-operation.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert that invoking closure over and over again sets a dangerous precedent.

I am someone who has been in the House long enough to remember when time allocation was rare. When Stephen Harper started bringing it in over and over again, I counted. I put to the ministers then that between 1920 and 2000, we had seen these kinds of debates 40 times, and in the previous 18 months we had seen them 40 times.

I would urge my hon. friends in the Liberal Party and in the NDP to consider what we are doing here. When we make time allocation routine, it means that the next government in the next session will weaponize it further, and the rights of individual MPs to debate bills properly will be further eroded. I ask them to please not do this thing.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her comments and her notes of caution. Of course, we are using this particular procedural motion to advance debate. I would hope that she would know that there is always going to be an open mind on studying this bill and that there will always be an open mind on improving this bill. Of course, I remain open to her suggestions and to the suggestions of all parliamentarians, and indeed of all Canadians, on how we can better protect Canadians.

My hon. colleague spoke about the weaponization of procedural motions. I am concerned about the weaponization of lethal firearms in our communities. Of course, this past weekend was a very harsh reminder that, tragically, innocent lives are being lost. Instead of getting any kind of collaboration from the Conservatives, we have seen delay tactics. That has to stop. Debate will continue at committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member from the Green Party. As I have said before, no one likes time allocation, but it is a tool that is necessary when we cannot negotiate and have co-operation.

We must remember that the mandate was not just given to this government in terms of co-operating. The mandate to co-operate was given to all political entities in the chamber. All it takes is any one opposition party to prevent any piece of legislation from passing, which will force the government to bring in time allocation or to concede the legislation and never see it pass.

My question to my colleague is this. Would he not agree that, at the end of the day, this is important? This is what Canadians want to see, which is the type of legislation that would have an impact on our lives. That is why we have to push it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will allow the hon. minister to answer. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

The hon. minister.

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

Madam Speaker, in short, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. colleague and the observation he makes that Bill C-21 is vitally important to Canadians, because it seeks to address the increase of gun violence, which has been statistically studied by StatsCan and other individuals over the past decade or so.

We have seen gun crime go up. We have seen handgun crime, specifically, go up. We have seen intimate-partner violence and gender-based violence go up in connection with the presence of guns. Rather than being able to advance the bill in this chamber, we have seen Conservatives partake in filibustering, which is why we have brought forward this time allocation motion. It does not stop debate. Of course, this bill will continue to be studied by the committee so we can better protect Canadians from the scourge of gun violence.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the government defending its use of something that Liberals previously said was an absolute affront to democracy: time allocation. It is incumbent upon us to talk about the fact that the bill has been debated for three hours and 20-odd minutes. This is not a bill that has been “filibustered”; this is a bill that has barely received scrutiny. There are valid questions that have been raised.

I believe that it is really important to point out right now, especially for the record, that the concerns that are being heard in my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and many ridings across the prairies are very different from the concerns that are being heard elsewhere. I think that this government would be very well suited not to move time allocation on this and instead hear directly from these witnesses. I would urge the minister to come to the prairies. He can come to my riding and talk to people who have serious concerns about the bill and what it would mean for their day-to-day living. Will he come to my riding to talk to the gun owners?

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

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to accept my hon. colleague's invitation, and I thank her for it. Also, I am pleased to alert her to the fact that I have previously visited the ridings of some of her colleagues in opposition, including Lethbridge, Alberta, where I had the chance to interact with law-abiding gun owners, for whom we have a tremendous amount of respect.

I would point out that we are not stopping the debate on this bill. All of the urging that my colleague has impressed upon me and the government to hear from witnesses and to continue with debate is an effort that will continue at committee. We have to move on with the bill, because this is an urgent issue, and we look forward to making sure that we can study this bill and ultimately pass it to better protect Canadians.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, what needs to be acknowledged this morning is that this government refuses to accept its status as a minority government, and has never accepted it, since 2019. Its minority status means that it has to work with the opposition parties. It refused to do so from the beginning, so the government called an election in the middle of a pandemic to try to win a majority. When that did not work, the government found a third party to be its puppet, and now it can do whatever it wants. Then it complains that the opposition is trying to obstruct proceedings in order to buy time. Of course, the government should not expect collaboration when it refuses to respect its collaborators.

We were told yesterday that we would be sitting until midnight tonight. No one knows who was consulted. The government House leader is not communicating with the House leaders of the other parties. If that is not contempt, I do not know what is. I urge the government to open its eyes and, more importantly, its ears and work with the opposition parties so we can stop debating about not debating. This is ridiculous.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague's role and the opposition's role. That is exactly why we came up with concrete and practical solutions for Canadians during the pandemic and obtained a consensus in the House. This was done very publicly and I am very proud of the result.

At the same time, with respect to gun violence, I am working with my Quebec counterparts, as I have mentioned several times. We must act. We will continue to debate this bill in committee with all members, including the Bloc members.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that this is getting disturbing. I hear the Conservatives time and again spending all the time of the House trying to tear this place down, instead of fighting for people in their ridings.

People are struggling right now. I say that with great frustration, because just in May there were three women murdered in Winnipeg—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

Madam Speaker, at page 662 of Bosc and Gagnon, it states:

The intent of the question-and-answer period after closure motion has been moved is to promote ministerial accountability, and it provides an opportunity for the government to justify its use of this measure.

This is not an opportunity for the fourth party in this place to hold the opposition to account.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I take the hon. member's comments. As he knows, I have been here for almost 14 years. Even when it was a Conservative government, the same line of questioning was actually happening. We have to have debate, and the debate is to hear both sides.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat that it is disturbing to listen to the Conservative Party taking people down instead of fighting for people in their ridings in question period after question period, and stalling things at committees.

It is concerning to me because, in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, there were three women murdered in the month of May. One other woman was hit and left to perish. These are serious issues that we are dealing with. If the Conservative Party and people in the House are so concerned about having time for debate, then maybe they should stop playing procedural games. I have concerns about debate, so I am making sure that we have proper time for debate.

I want to ask the minister this. How is he going to ensure accountability at committee to make sure that due process is followed and make sure that we can come up with something that truly helps individuals in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for her advocacy, and express my condolences and support to my hon. colleague's community for the recent tragic losses owing to gun violence. That is precisely why we have to continue to be motivated to have debate and—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I hope if you seek it you would receive unanimous consent for the extension of the question-and-answer period by 15 minutes. I think there is incredibly valuable discussion that is yet to be had on this particular subject.

I would ask for unanimous consent to extend this period by what I think is a very reasonable 15 minutes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[An hon. member]

Nay.

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

Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that we will continue to have at least five more hours of debate on Bill C-21. Then it will go to committee, where I know there will be a very extensive, thorough and comprehensive study of Bill C-21. This is a good bill. It has the broad support of Canadians across a wide array of constituencies.

We embrace the idea of debating, and passing, this bill so we can better protect communities from the scourge of gun violence.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The 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. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #162

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:

(a) on the day the House begins debate on the second reading motion of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication), no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment or when no member rises to speak during the debate, whichever is earlier, the bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed on division; and

(b) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to undertake a study on the subject matter of Bill C-28 when the business of the House resumes in September 2022, during the course of this study the Minister of Justice be invited to appear as a witness, and the committee report its findings to the House no later than Friday, December 16, 2022.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

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

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

Madam Speaker, today, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Before I start my speech, I want to acknowledge that today is June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day. It is a day that I recognize with a lot of love because of my beautiful granny. She went to residential school in Lejac between the ages of four and 16, and her strength and integrity keep our family strong. I also want to acknowledge my Auntie Dean from Stellat’en First Nation. Her traditional name is Hatix-Ka’wah, which means peace within the frame of a house. Because of the day, I wanted to acknowledge her as the lead of our family before I started.

I am here specifically to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments in regard to firearms. I want to start by thanking the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his hard work on this file. It is not an easy one, and these discussions are always rife with conflict as we try to navigate our way around this issue. I will say that I am ready to support this bill getting to committee. I also recognize that I still have a lot of questions, and I am hoping the committee will be able to work through some of those questions to get me answers.

I represent a rural riding. I grew up in a household where several of my family members were legal gun owners. They followed the rules, and I was taught gun safety at a very young age as a matter of respect. I grew up eating wild meat, and hunting was a significant part of my family's life.

I have met with many legal gun owners in my riding who have talked about the frustration they feel about the rules always focusing on them, rather than addressing some of their legitimate concerns about illegal guns and how they get into our communities. That is an important part of our conversation today, and it should continue to be. Those conversations do concern me greatly. My riding also has a high level of people retiring from the military who maintain their skills as a commitment to their years of service. It is important for us all to recognize those who use firearms to protect and serve our communities.

I have also heard from constituents who are very, very concerned about gun violence in their communities and in our region. There have been, sadly, several examples in my riding over the past few years, which has resulted in my office receiving more concerns about gun safety than we have ever seen before. This is especially concerning when it comes to cases of domestic violence where guns are used. In 2020, 160 women and girls were killed in Canada. One woman or girl is killed every two and a half days in this country. Therefore, as Canadians are seeing an increase in gun violence across our country, I believe that all Canadians do want to see this addressed.

About three years ago, a constituent in my riding invited me to come to the shooting range with him. He wanted to showcase this for me, so I would understand the rules and how he followed them. I agreed so that I could learn more about the realities of these folks living in my region. Of course, he was also a retired service member for the military, and I always take an opportunity to spend time with people who served us, and who served us so well.

The first thing he told me was that I would have to come to his house and ride with him because he could not stop on the way through town to pick me up. The rules in Canada meant that he had to go straight from his home, not stopping for anything else, and go to the range. At his home, he was able to show me the way he stored his guns separate from ammunition, with everything locked away and secured. He also showed me how he transported the guns and how that was done safely.

I learned a lot, and I really appreciated his effort to take that time to educate me. He also shared that he was concerned about the gun violence in Canada and what that did for him as a legal gun owner and as somebody who was really practising safely. He knew of things that had happened across the country, and he knew that people were more fearful.

These are important conversations to have, especially at that community level where we can have those open conversations and discussions about how we can come together. My constituent did feel that the majority of gun owners followed the rules very carefully, but he was also concerned that there are legal gun owners who do not always follow the rules, and he wanted to make sure that those issues were addressed. Of course, he was also very concerned about the fact that we do have illegal guns in this country, and those folks can really make a bad name for people who are doing their best to be safe.

The facts are that, in Canada between 2019 and 2020, there were notable increases in rates of firearm-related violent crimes being reported, especially in places like southern rural British Columbia, which had an increase of 34%; the northern rural part of Ontario, which increased by 32%; rural Alberta, which increased by 32% in the north and 31% in the south; the Northwest Territories, which saw a 23% increase; and Nova Scotia, which increased by 22%. Handguns were the most serious weapon present in most firearm-related violent crimes.

Over my seven years here, I have heard two things repeatedly from constituents: one is that we need to look at gun policy in Canada, focussing on illegal guns and how they get to our country; and two is that we need more education in Canada about the strong rules that we do have and how they work. I believe these are important areas to discuss.

I have also heard a lot on this bill specifically about concerns from the airsoft community that Bill C-21 would prohibit imports, exports, sales and transfers of all replica firearms, which would include airsoft guns that are designed or intended to look exactly like or resemble a real firearm.

This does concern me, because there is the safety issue on the one side that we should consider carefully. We have heard stories of people using these to emulate real guns, and that is a safety concern for all people who are involved in that situation. We also hear the other side, and that it will impact paintball retailers and facilities, as most rely on income from both airsoft and paintball use.

I understand that in this country there are very few regulations, and I think it is something we need to look at. We have heard from this sector that they have not been meaningfully consulted. We want to make sure that when we further the discussions, we could address that.

I have learned that people have successfully altered airsoft weapons to hold real ammunition, and this really surprised me. I had no idea that that was even possible. Unfortunately it is, and it is a growing concern. We need to work with this sector to make sure that we look at the realities they are facing, and make sure the solution is workable, so they can continue their practice and not have a huge impact on their income. However, we also need to make sure the safety of Canadians is addressed.

Illegal guns are a huge concern for my constituents, as I mentioned earlier. This bill does not offer what I would like to see on measures for gun smuggling. I represent 19 Wing Comox. Its crews do tremendous work on our coastline to keep our community safe. They have found people trying to ship things illegally across our borders, whether it be guns or drugs, and they have stopped that. I really appreciate their work, but I am concerned there is not going to be the amount of support needed to continue that work and to expand that work.

We know that this bill would increase the maximum penalty for trafficking, smuggling and other firearms offences from 10 years to 14 years. It would require the commissioner of firearms to give the minister an annual report. It would allow proactive information sharing between the RCMP and local law enforcement agencies for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting firearm trafficking offences, and it would also provide eligibility for wiretapping on additional Criminal Code firearms offences.

What it does not include in a meaningful way is more support for the Canadian Border Services Agency. We know that, under the previous Conservative government, over 1,000 positions were cut. Under the Liberal government, some of those folks are back, but definitely not the number that is required to actually address the guns that are being smuggled into our country illegally.

We also know, as our leader wrote to the Prime Minister in 2018, that we need to see more changes within our policies in this country to support the root causes of gun violence in some of the more vulnerable communities. We need to address things such as poverty. I was at an event just a few days ago in my community, and I was very surprised by how many people talked to me about the increasing homeless population. They spoke of how more and more people are really struggling to make ends meet and how often they are going towards violence because they cannot feed themselves. They are not safe in their own area.

We need to make sure there are supports provided to our communities to address these key issues because the more poverty grows, and the more people are disenfranchised, the more violence is the result. We need to look at these things as correlating numbers.

I am here to discuss this. I hope that all of us in the House can have a meaningful conversation, because these things are important to our communities, and if we do not address them in an open and transparent way, it will lead to more conflict.

[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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, Conservative, 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 not only short on resources for the the CBSA, but also for the RCMP. I have a constituent who has been trying, as a responsible gun owner, to contact the RCMP to register a handgun so that they are aware before the deadline. There are absolutely no resources in the RCMP to handle this influx of requests caused by the government's announcement. I have spoken to this man personally and he is very concerned. He is very concerned because he is a responsible gun owner and he wants to do the right thing, but he cannot accomplish that because of the limited resources the government has allocated to allow him to follow the rules.

As I mentioned before, I can say with near certainty that the gang members in downtown Toronto are not graduates of a restricted firearms safety course. I talked earlier about carrying a clipboard and looking busy. The government is very good at introducing legislation that does very little and simply virtue signals to their base. That is exactly what Bill C-21 is doing, virtue signalling to their base at the expense of Saskatchewan and all of rural Canada.

Finally, this being my last chance to speak before we will rise for the summer, I would like to take this chance to thank the pages, interpreters, security, IT staff and everyone else who keeps this place running. I wish them a well-deserved summer.

[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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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 the 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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, 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, NDP, 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.

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

moved that Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth.

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

Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Indeed. Proceed, please.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-28. This bill responds to the Supreme Court decisions in Brown and Sullivan and Chan, which address rare yet serious situations in which a person harms someone else while in a state of self-induced extreme intoxication.

I would like to thank, first of all, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth. As well, I thank my critics, including the member for Fundy Royal, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, et le député deRivière-du-Nord for their collaboration and co-operation from the day that this Supreme Court decision was rendered, just over five weeks ago.

We have moved with alacrity, but also with precision, in order to fill a gap. I really want to thank my colleagues for the level of co-operation that we have received with respect to this matter, and colleagues on all sides of the House as well as the Senate who expressed an interest in us moving quickly.

Since the Court's decisions were released, many Canadians, including members in the House and the other place, have expressed concerns that acts of violence committed while in a state of extreme intoxication might very well go unpunished. Parliamentarians from all parties have urged action, as have some of my provincial and territorial counterparts. I am pleased that earlier this week there was an all-party agreement to move this forward swiftly. There are times when it is our duty as parliamentarians to move quickly to solve problems, and this is one of those times.

Women's rights organizations have expressed concerns about rulings that could change our way of seeing intoxication and criminal liability. They are concerned about the message that sends to survivors of sexual assault and other violent crimes.

We have heard that young women are nervous to return to university and college campuses this fall for fear that they could be assaulted and see intoxicated perpetrators escape liability. That is why we have acted quickly to introduce Bill C-28.

It is also tangible proof of our commitment to a justice system that keeps communities safe and holds offenders accountable while respecting the charter.

There has been a lot of inaccurate and misleading information online about the court's decisions.

Let me be clear: being intoxicated is not a defence for a criminal act such as sexual assault. That was the law before the Supreme Court decision, and it is still the law today. Extreme intoxication is a serious condition in which the person is unaware of or incapable of controlling their behaviour.

Parliament previously considered this issue in response to the 1994 decision of the Supreme Court in Daviault. In that case, the court found that a defence of extreme intoxication could be used for general intent crimes. Parliament responded by enacting section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which limited the extreme intoxication defence in cases involving violent offences.

In the recent Brown decision, five weeks ago, the Supreme Court found that Parliament had two legitimate and pressing objectives in section 33.1. First, section 33.1 sought to protect the public from extremely intoxicated violence, especially women and children who are at a higher risk of experiencing violence, including violence committed by individuals who are intoxicated.

We know that there are clear links between intoxication and gender-based violence, particularly sexual violence and intimate partner violence, or IPV. According to a 2018 Statistics Canada survey, 63% of women and girls who were killed were killed by an intoxicated attacker.

Last year, the World Health Organization identified the harmful use of alcohol as a risk factor for sexual violence and IPV. Fighting violence committed by intoxicated people while protecting the public is clearly still a pressing objective.

The second objective was to hold individuals accountable by ensuring that they could not escape liability for crimes of violence committed while in a state of self-induced extreme intoxication. The Supreme Court recognized that these two objectives remain pressing and substantial today.

However, because section 33.1 also captured cases where extreme intoxication and violence were not reasonably foreseeable, the court concluded that the law risked convicting people who might not be to blame for ending up in a state of extreme intoxication. This, therefore, infringed the charter.

Bill C-28 addresses this gap in the law created by the court's decisions and introduces a new section 33.1 with the same public protection and accountability objectives. With this bill, we are standing up for victims and survivors of crime. This bill reaffirms that it is fair and just to hold individuals responsible for crimes of violence like assault, sexual assault and manslaughter committed in a state of extreme intoxication if they were criminally negligent in their consumption of intoxicating substances.

It is simply unacceptable for people to negligently put themselves in a dangerous state in which they cannot control their actions and then escape the consequences if someone gets hurt. The Supreme Court has described extreme intoxication as “a state akin to automatism”. In other words, the body is doing something but the mind is not in control.

Legally, extreme intoxication is very rare. An accused cannot just assert that they were in a state of extreme intoxication when they harmed someone and be absolved of liability; they need to prove that they were in that rare mental state by using expert evidence.

Bill C-28 leaves this important requirement for establishing the defence in place. What changes is what happens next.

If a person establishes that they were in a state of extreme intoxication under Bill C-28, they would still be held criminally liable if they departed markedly from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in those circumstances.

A “marked departure” means that a person's conduct fell far below what a reasonable person would have done in those circumstances to avoid foreseeable risk—in this case, the risk of a violent loss of control.

Determining criminal negligence—and this is a standard known to law—involves a two-step process. First, would a reasonable person, in those circumstances, have foreseen the risk and taken steps to avoid it? This is an objective test. Second, did the person's failure to do so amount to a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances?

The risk here is whether consumption of intoxicants could cause extreme intoxication and lead the person to harm someone. By requiring proof of negligence, Bill C-28 corrects the constitutional deficiency found in the former section.

Bill C-28 also requires courts to assess whether the person's conduct amounted to a marked departure and requires courts to consider all relevant circumstances, including anything the person did to avoid the risk. Courts routinely conduct this type of assessment in other areas of criminal law, notably in relation to offences of criminal negligence. The bill makes clear that all relevant circumstances must be taken into account. While these circumstances will vary from case to case, certain factors can be expected to arise, including the nature of the substance and the setting where they were consumed.

To help illustrate the bill's intention, let us consider a couple examples. Someone who attends a crowded gathering and quickly consumes a large amount of a substance known to cause psychosis and agitation, without taking any precautions, could likely be proved to be criminally negligent and thus convicted.

By contrast, let us say someone takes a prescription drug, triggering an unanticipated state of extreme intoxication and hurts someone. However, because they could not have anticipated a violent loss of control when they took the medication, in this case they might very well be acquitted. Each case will turn on the unique facts before the court.

Bill C‑28 responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's Brown, Sullivan and Chan decisions. As LEAF said last week, Bill C‑28 is a thoughtful, nuanced and constitutional piece of legislation to address the narrow but significant gap resulting from the Supreme Court of Canada decisions. This bill recognizes that all members of society have a responsibility to protect each other from the foreseeable risks of their behaviour, and it holds people accountable for the harm they cause when they fail to meet that responsibility.

I firmly believe that Bill C-28 serves to complete the work that Parliament began in 1995 when it first enacted section 33.1. It protects the public and holds people accountable for their actions in a way that is fair and constitutional.

I once again repeat the thanks that I offered at the beginning to my critics, who worked diligently with all of us to help advance this quickly.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to discuss this with the minister tonight.

As he knows, we have been given very little time for debate, as this decision came down five weeks ago. Does he agree that it would have been preferable for us to have more time to debate this bill in the House, as well as to consider expert witness testimony at committee?

I am sure he is aware that the National Association of Women and the Law, for example, has raised some concerns. We all share an interest in protecting vulnerable Canadians, but in light of how rushed this has been, is he open to consideration in the fall if this bill does need improvement?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for all of his work on this and other issues. He is my justice critic, and I cherish that relationship. It is a very productive one.

The short answer to the question is yes. We will consider any good ideas.

There is no question that we moved quickly. We consulted widely. We had an inkling about it from the decision. A number of prominent individuals, professors of law and that sort of thing have been saying for the last 20 years that section 33.1 was problematic. The court itself gave us two possible paths. We chose one of them, the path we thought was the best path, and it remains, therefore, constitutional.

We worked quickly. We worked expeditiously. We consulted widely. It is true that there are a few groups who disagree, but not the vast majority. The vast majority of women's groups, victims groups and experts feel that this was the best way to go. Provincial governments and Crown prosecutors all feel this was the best way to go, but we will work in good faith with our colleagues across the aisle in the fall to study this most carefully.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his openness and co-operation in working with other parties to address this issue.

I wonder if he shares with me a concern I have. A confusion of simple intoxication with extreme intoxication has been inserted into the public discourse, in particular online. I guess what I hope we can do tonight is somehow address the fact that in this country, simple intoxication has never been and never will be a defence against violent criminal acts.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his co-operation on this issue.

I share that concern. I think that actually all in this House share that concern. One of the really troubling parts of the Supreme Court decision was an explosion of misinformation online. I am not saying that it was in bad faith; it was just a misunderstanding. It was that all of a sudden there was a defence in the vast majority of cases in which intoxication might have been a factor. It is simply not the case that in those cases one has a defence to any general intent crime, such as assault, sexual assault or manslaughter.

This is a very rare set of cases. We have addressed that, but with the hon. member and other hon. members in this House, I think we should take this opportunity to repeat to Canadians that all along the spectrum, one does not have a defence of intoxication for violent crime or sexual assault.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. I am my party's status of women critic, and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women just finished a study on intimate partner violence. I believe the minister said that 68% of victims had been attacked by an intoxicated person, which sounds extremely high to me.

In a few words, how would the minister say that Bill C‑28 fits into the existing continuum of measures to combat intimate partner violence? Some women's groups seem to have some doubts. Does the minister understand all the aspects of the issue, and could he tell us more about them?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a valid concern. We all have a duty to support victims of intimate partner violence. As legislators and as a government, we must find solutions.

Today's response obviously fixes one part of the problem at one end of the spectrum. It is true that the law does not allow intoxication to be used a defence, but—

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to express my unequivocal support for Bill C-28.

What I would like to do is focus on what this legislation means for the women and youth who are disproportionately impacted by violence, and more specifically, intoxicated violence. The extreme intoxication we are talking about is not about being drunk and not about being high. The Supreme Court has clearly said that drunkenness is not a defence in crimes of violence, including sexual assault.

That is really important, so I am going to repeat it: Drunkenness is not a defence in crimes of violence, including sexual assault.

In recent years, Canadians have deepened their understanding of the harmful social norms and influences that contribute to gender-based violence. They are also aware that our justice and social systems often fail victims and survivors. When we take an even closer look at this issue, we see that indigenous women and girls, racialized people and LGBTQ2+ people experience gender-based violence and sexual violence more than any other segments of society.

All Canadians deserve a justice system that protects them. Everyone, especially those who are most at risk, deserves to feel protected from violence. These ideals lie at the core of the legislation that is before us this evening.

In May, the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling essentially created a gap in Canadian law, a gap that can enable perpetrators to avoid conviction if they are able to prove that extreme intoxication rendered them not responsible for the crimes they committed. Bill C-28 aims to close this gap.

As mentioned, the Supreme Court ruling created a gap. Unfortunately, that gap was quickly filled with misinformation, so—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. minister. We are having a problem with the interpretation.

Is it working now?

I think it is the hon. minister's microphone that is perhaps a bit too high. Maybe she could lower it.

Can we try again?

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, is this better?

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

It seems to be better.

The hon. minister.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as mentioned, the Supreme Court ruling created a gap, and unfortunately, that gap was quickly filled with misinformation.

I have a personal note. A couple of weeks ago, my daughter, Blaize, came home from school. She is 17 years old. She said, “Mom, how messed up is it that people can just get drunk and then assault other people?” This, of course, was based on information she had seen on social media.

I come from a background of research. In my previous life I was a reporter, so I dug into this a bit. I looked into some of the social media posts, and I looked into what Blaize and other young women across this country were seeing. What I saw were social media posts with thousands of likes and comments misleading young women about what the Supreme Court's decision actually means.

I want to share, if I might, a couple of examples. One caption of a clip said, “POV: You are a teenage girl living in Canada where rape is now legal, if you are intoxicated”. It had 489,000 likes, more than 9,000 comments and almost 6,000 shares. Another post said, “You are a 16-year-old teenager living in Canada, and being too intoxicated is legal for rape and sexual assault”. That had 2.1 million views, and that is why I am here tonight.

While Bill C-28 would address a rare defence, the impact of the gross misinformation on young people, and young women especially, has been absolutely significant. This unintentional misinformation and sometimes intentional alarmist reporting style come with very serious consequences for women right across this country, as they are adding to the stigma that survivors already face when reporting gender-based violence. We know the data already shows us that just 5% of sexual assaults are actually reported to police.

Parliament simply cannot go another day knowing there are young women who believe that, if they are attacked, they will not be protected. It is why, in the little more than five weeks since the Supreme Court's decision, we are making it clear that individuals who consume drugs or alcohol in a criminally negligent manner are held criminally responsible. There will be no loophole.

For those who saw this ruling or the headlines surrounding it and felt that fear, I want them to know that I see them. I understand them, and I understand where that feeling comes from. By closing the gap created by the Supreme Court's rulings, the legislation would strengthen Canada's legal system and better protect some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Bill C-28 is just one of the many actions we are taking to address gender-based violence and build public confidence in the criminal justice system. We are addressing this from every angle, with changes such as implementing more training for judges, funding campus supports for students and working with provinces and territories on a national action plan to end gender-based violence, which is on track to come out this year.

I know there is still distrust in our justice system, especially for racialized women and girls, indigenous women and members of the LGBTQ2 community, but I hope Bill C-28 will address some of these very real concerns. We cannot lose this hard-won ground. Acting quickly to close the gap created by the Supreme Court's ruling is an important part of this effort. I encourage my hon. colleagues and the other place, as well, to support this bill now before us.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing is so key. We know that we need to continually make improvements to the justice system because it continually fails women. While some of the people who are very supportive of this piece of legislation have come out with their support, they have also recommended that far more training occur within the criminal justice system for these types of violence and for criminal acts that happen against women.

The minister mentioned it briefly, but I would ask her talk more about what the government has planned to ensure that our criminal justice system has that specific training to help women who are facing sexual violence.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate what Bill C-28 would do, because that is why we are here tonight. Bill C-28 would amend the Criminal Code so that individuals would be held responsible for violence they commit while in a state of extreme intoxication if they ended up in that state through their own criminal negligence.

That is an important point. In other words, if people voluntarily consume intoxicants, drugs or mix drugs with alcohol knowing that there is a risk of losing control and becoming violent, they may be held criminally responsible. That is the gap that we are closing.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am hearing from many organizations is the lack of consultation. The minister indicated that there was lots of consultation, and I know the Minister of Justice said that also, but one of the biggest pieces of feedback I am getting this week is that there has not been enough.

I would ask the minister to comment on that because that is the feedback I am getting from many organizations across Canada.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is my critic. I have deep respect for the member and for the way she leads with such empathy.

It is important that we remember why we are here tonight and why we acted so expeditiously in this regard. It is my belief that lives are on the line. When we have the kind of misinformation that was rampant on social media, that creates fear. I saw it in my own daughter, and I know she is not alone. That is something we are addressing. We moved quickly to close the gap.

There was consultation, but it is so important to remember why we are here. Bill C-28 would address a rare defence. The impact of misinformation on young people and young women has been absolutely significant. I have heard first-hand young women who truly thought that if they were attacked, there would be no protection for them, none. We had to act quickly and we did. It has been just over—

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

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth and the governing party have moved quickly.

I wonder if she could offer her insights in response to comments recently reported in the media by Kerri Froc, chair of the National Association of Women and the Law, who shared concerns that Bill C-28, as written, may be too difficult for prosecutors to prove. What are the minister's comments on that?

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am based in research. I have heard it first-hand. I have talked to young women who said if they are attacked, they are not going to be protected, and I had to clear up that misinformation.

We had to act quickly. We know that it has been just over five weeks. We know that well, since the Supreme Court's decision, but we are making it abundantly clear that committing any crime is not okay. I want to repeat that: It is not okay.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth.

She told us that lives are at stake. I completely agree with her, and the Bloc Québécois is definitely in favour of Bill C‑28. If lives are at stake, then my question is obvious: Why did they wait so long to introduce legislation?

In R. v. Brown, which went to the Supreme Court, there was already a decision at the trial level. The government could have been proactive and provided a framework for such situations. I will quote the Supreme Court, as follows:

Parliament had before it a record that highlighted the strong correlation between alcohol and drug use and violent offences, in particular against women, and brought to the fore of Parliament’s attention the equality, dignity, and security rights of all victims of intoxicated violence.

[Marci Ien, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support, and I will say with deep respect that five weeks is not slow.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Fundy Royal.

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

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

The hon. member may proceed.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure everybody in the lobby is surprised that I actually did that at the right time.

Tonight is one of our last evenings sitting in the House of Commons before we adjourn for the summer and return to our ridings. The speech that I am going to give tonight is truly based in what I am seeing all around us. It has become a culture of violence.

Tonight, we are speaking on Bill C-28. Although I support it in principle, we do have a lot further to go. Tonight, we have the opportunity to begin this discussion, which I hope becomes a much larger national discussion. We need to continue this conversation, especially with women's organizations, which have come out and cannot support this legislation.

A good ally of mine and friend, Megan Walker, discussed this legislation with me yesterday. She cannot support it and shared her concerns about the ability of the Crown to prove it. She feels that this legislation is tokenism

Women's organizations are stepping forward and asking us to halt this legislation, while other organizations are in full support of the legislation. To me, this is a clear yellow light that we have to be cautious and that we need to re-address this: that what we are doing today is just not enough. This needs to continue.

My last six months in my role as the shadow minister for women and gender equality and youth have given me the honour to work with people, especially in the committee on the status of women.

I can share with members that it seems like we are in a real mess, and I can tell us that we need change.

Let us start with this piece of legislation. I want to address it by sharing the letter that was received by the National Association of Women and the Law. It reads, and I quote:

Feminist organizations in Canada have long been concerned about the connection between men’s use of intoxicants, and violence against women. Study after study has shown that there is a direct link between so-called ‘drunkenness’ and sexual violence. There are studies that report an average of 50% of sexual assault perpetrators consumed alcohol at the time of the assault, with other studies showing a variance of between 30 and 75%.

Looking back to the 1994 Daviault decision, in which the Supreme Court ordered a new trial based on the accused’s extreme intoxication at the time of the incident, the ‘gap’ in the law quickly becomes apparent. Mr. Daviault had voluntarily consumed an excessive quantity of alcohol before forcing intercourse on the complainant, an elderly woman with a disability. In response, feminist groups like National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) pressed the government to restrict the defence of extreme intoxication. The federal government enacted section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, closing the gap by preventing those who voluntarily consume intoxicants and then commit acts of violence from using the defence of extreme intoxication for general intent offences.

In May 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision in Brown struck down the law set out in s. 33.1, declaring it unconstitutional and stating that voluntarily taking intoxicating substances cannot replace the criminal intent required for a conviction. This decision re-opens the ‘gap’ left by the 1994 Daviault decision, once again leaving women vulnerable to crimes of violence when the accused can demonstrate that his intoxication put him into a state of automatism. Despite the assurances of some defence lawyers and their allies that reliance on extreme intoxication will be rare, research analyzing the extreme intoxication defence indicates that it will be raised with some regularity. Indeed, research shows that it will be used overwhelmingly by men, and that the majority of victims will be women.

I know that I shared a very lengthy part of that letter, but to me, this is what we are talking about. Yes, this legislation came out very quickly. That means we need to get it passed to stop the gap today, but that does not mean that the gap has fully been filled. That is why I am urging the government to say, yes, we have got Bill C-28 done but we need to do more. I am urging the government to get on the road and let us start doing those consultations. Let us start talking more.

I want to go back to stuff that we have also been hearing about Hockey Canada. We just heard that Hockey Canada receives one to two formal complaints annually and that there are investigations.

I want to talk about all of this, because one thing that I can indicate is that sexual violence and violence against children should never happen. We are seeing it more and more. In the past number of weeks, as I have been dealing with my role as the shadow minister for women and gender equality, and in chairing the committee on the status of women, we are talking about violence and more violence. Our one study on intimate partner violence was talking about domestic violence. Following that, we talked about Kyra's Law, named for a young girl, a young child, who was murdered by her father, basically to get back at the mother.

I am looking at what is happening with Hockey Canada. We talked about a young girl who was allegedly raped by eight hockey players, and there is no responsibility. Then we can talk about what we are talking about here today, Bill C-28. To me, it is really clear. We are talking about things that are a social issue. It is a sexual assault issue.

When I look back at that link between what I am talking about with Hockey Canada and the eight players, and what we are seeing here, the bottom line is that it should never be happening in the first place. In Hockey Canada, we are hearing about a civil law suit that went through. Hockey Canada actually paid out, rather than having this go through the criminal court system. Unfortunately, I understand why someone would choose a civil suit over our justice system right now. We know it is not perfect. With the help of Bill C-233 and other bills that have been put forward in the past, we need to ensure that there is proper training for judges, but it is not just judges. It is everybody involved.

When I look at this, I look at who is responsible. Ultimately, the perpetrator has to be responsible. Although this legislation closes that gap in which we are talking about the state of automatism, we also have to look at what is next.

Just weeks ago, we passed that important piece of legislation, Bill C-233 with unanimous support. It was an all-party effort. I believe it started a conversation, and I believe what we are doing here tonight is also starting that conversation. Just as the minister stated, I had the same conversation with my 18-year-old son. He called me the very next morning and asked me about it when I was in Ottawa. I said, “Son, I'm working on this.” We recognize that it does not mean that someone has to be drunk and this could happen, but there needs to be extreme intoxication. For a young woman, anything is a barrier, including the fact that somebody may use this defence. Everything like that is a barrier.

People are coming out and saying that this law is just window dressing and is not really tackling the real issues. I think what we have to tackle is the culture of sexual violence, because we seem to be ignoring it. I was thinking about it a lot over the past few days. Working on the Hockey Canada case has really brought things to light. These are our kids we are talking about. These are the kids that our kids go to public school with. These are the children, whether they are the perpetrators or the victims. These are just kids. Sometimes we get lost on our way and we confuse what is right and wrong. Is extreme intoxication good enough, or is because someone is an athlete or a politician good enough?

We know, from the recent Supreme Court ruling on May 13, that women's organizations have spoken up. Because of that, we know this needs to be addressed. The government has addressed it through this legislation as Bill C-28. I thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. We pushed on this and we asked for this to be done, so I thank him for doing so.

We need more transparency for victims, and we need to remember that victims have rights, too. This is the problem. We talk so much about the rights of our perpetrators, but our victims need to have rights too. This is what we are losing a lot of the time in these conversations, whether I am talking about Hockey Canada or extreme intoxication. No is no, and there must be consent.

Finally, I want to end this with a quote. I go back to the National Association of Women and the Law:

While they may not be successful in making out the defence – pleading the defence, in itself, will result in increased timelines and lengthy court processes for victims. Ultimately, C-28 is a missed opportunity to close the door on the use of the extreme intoxication defence where alcohol alone is used.

I am coming back and I am saying that this summer I will be working on this. I will be working on providing any information that I can to both the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth and the Minister of Justice, because we can do better, and we need to make sure that we listen to everybody. We need to be listening to the victims, and we need to be working to end sexual violence.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very thoughtful speech, as well as her support of this bill.

I want to quote from LEAF:

LEAF supports this thoughtful, nuanced, and constitutional legislation to address the narrow gap resulting from the SCC decisions.

“If adopted by Parliament, we will be looking to the courts to apply this legislation in a similarly thoughtful way,” says Pam Hrick, Executive Director & General Counsel at LEAF.

I am wondering if my friend opposite could comment on this. Based on her concerns about the bill, could the member see how it is so important for us to pass this bill today and have it as law before we rise?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, we need to pass it because, as the Minister for Gender Equality indicated, we do not want victims. We do not want another person to fall victim to this. I look at it as one is too many. We know that this defence being used once is one time too many, especially if somebody has been the victim of a sexual assault and somebody is getting off using this defence. We need to continue this conversation. Although this bill solves part of the problem, there needs to be a much bigger conversation.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge her. She is the chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I wish her a very good summer. She was also with me at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the horrible case of assault against a young woman; it is truly awful. She spoke about it at the end.

It was a difficult session. We conducted a study on domestic violence at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. It was a very tough session. We heard some poignant testimonies.

How does Bill C‑28 fit into this context? She opened the door in her response to the previous question: in a continuum of measures that may be taken to address violence against people. She says that this bill may not go far enough. How does she see it? What would she have wanted to see to make this bill truly fit into the context where we address this violence against women?

I would like to hear her thoughts.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have really enjoyed my time working with the member for Shefford.

When we are looking at this bill, Bill C-28, we know that domestic violence increases with the intake of alcohol. We know that over the past two years, when we have seen stress and mental health also have many challenges, we have seen an increase in domestic violence, as well. With respect to Bill C-28, because I am a person who will always advocate for victims, I look at this as a very victim-centred bill. That is what we need to look at. It seems to be more perpetrator-centred, but that is the thing. We need to continue to fight for those victims and we understand that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a brief question. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know the member shares the same concern we have as New Democrats: This is only one part of attacking violence against women. Does she share with me the concern that the justice committee has twice recommended to the House that the government act to make coercive and controlling behaviour an offence in the Criminal Code? We know that coercive and controlling behaviour contributes directly to violence. Does she share my concern about the sloth with which the government is approaching that recommendation?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, the more I sit on the status of women committee and understand coercive behaviour, the more I have to recognize this is a huge problem, whether it is financial, sexual, regarding harassment or anything of that sort. Coercive behaviour is a very strong thing that we may not see, but we know it is mental abuse. Yes, I am urging the current government to continue to look at that, because we know that women who are living under coercive behaviours and circumstances are having problems leaving those very violent situations.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, for her hard work, for the comments that she just made and for all of the efforts she has made on behalf of her constituency. I thank her as well for her work on the status of women committee and for her advocacy since the Supreme Court of Canada decision to have a response from the government. I really appreciate that.

She also makes sure the voices that have not been heard so much during the drafting process of Bill C-28 are being heard in the House today and will certainly be heard as this discussion continues.

I would expect that most, if not all, members of this House would agree that addressing and eliminating violence against women and girls should be a top priority and one that is dealt with expeditiously.

Unfortunately, it has been almost 40 days since the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the case of R. v. Brown, striking down section 33.1 of the Criminal Code. As a result of this decision, which was announced back in May, it would now be permissible to claim extreme intoxication due to drugs or alcohol as an excuse for murderers, abusers and attackers.

Conservatives have spent the last 39 days calling on the Minister of Justice to prioritize the response we are debating today. The government has control over the legislative agenda, and if it had wanted to bring this bill forward sooner, before the last days of the spring sitting, it did indeed have the power to do so. That would have allowed us a thorough debate in this House and a study at committee, where we could have heard some of the testimony that we are hearing now from the newspapers and from people writing to our offices with concerns about the bill. It should be in all of our interests, and in all Canadians' interests, that we as parliamentarians get our job right. Part of our job is drafting and voting on legislation, and we want to make sure that we hear from experts before we do that.

It took less than an hour for the Liberals to announce their intention to appeal the Alberta court decision regarding their unconstitutional anti-pipeline bill, but it has been 40 days days since the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that criminals will not be held accountable for murder if they were extremely intoxicated when they committed the crime. Why is the government turning on a dime in order to defend legislation that shuts down industries when we are just beginning debate, more than five weeks later, on the legislative response to the Supreme Court's ruling that leaves victims vulnerable?

Conservatives want to err on the side of having legislation in place sooner rather than later so that there can be an element of safety against this defence being used. However, while we can allow this bill to pass for the time being, I want to make it very clear that this is by no means the end of the discussion.

That is why we have insisted in the motion that the justice committee study this bill, this response, and that the minister appear and that the committee report back so that Parliament has an opportunity to improve this legislation if necessary.

Over the summer months, Conservatives will be speaking with stakeholders, organizations, women's groups and individuals whose voices must be heard when we are talking about strengthening the justice system. Conservatives will make sure that those voices are heard.

We know the statistics. We know that women and girls are disproportionately victims of violence and we know that the offenders in these instances are almost always male. The Liberals will try to distract Canadians from the fact that their self-proclaimed “feminist” government has been dragging its feet to address a vulnerability in the law that they were very well aware of, knowing that women and girls are most often the victims in situations like this.

Again I would like to commend the hard work of my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London in raising awareness of this issue through a campaign using the hashtag “#oneistoomany” on her social media.

On May 27, 14 days after the ruling came down from the Supreme Court, along with my Conservative colleagues from Elgin—Middlesex—London, Brantford—Brant and Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice to express the severity and urgency of this issue and calling for action. At that point, we thought we would see some action.

I would now like to share with the House some of what we asked for in that letter:

The decisions ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Brown...and R v. Sullivan...imperil the safety of victims of violent physical attacks, domestic violence and sexual assault by permitting the dubious defence of non-insane automatism due to self-induced intoxication.

These offences disproportionately affect women, gender diverse individuals and vulnerable Canadians. The ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada leaves a gap in the law that endangers the safety of communities and the lives of Canadians. This requires the utmost urgent action in order to protect Canadians, especially those at greater risk of experiencing gender-based violence.

The government must act now. It is your duty as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to respond to these decisions, close the gaps in the law and ensure the protection of victims.

Our role as Parliamentarians is to represent the best interests of our communities regarding the law and legislation. This is an issue that affects us all, and we stand ready to assist in any way possible to work with you to ensure that there is an adequate response from parliament that prioritizes the safety and security of Canadians.

The Government of Canada owes it to the victims, survivors, and their families to act immediately.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We eagerly await your response.

Eagerly await the minister's response we did. Now, 25 days after we first sent this to the Minister of Justice, we are finally having this discussion in the House of Commons today, just before we rise for the summer.

While Conservatives will allow the bill to proceed, we are not under any illusion that this is the end of the discussion. Rather, Conservatives have secured from the government a commitment to instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to take up a study on this matter when we return in the fall. This is a very serious topic that deserves our Parliament's time and attention. We can only improve legislation when we invite expert testimony into the conversation, which this study will certainly endeavour to do, and which we have not heard up until this point.

I know from speaking with different organizations that they felt extremely rushed. They had an online consultation, but they did not feel that they were able to give adequate input on the bill, on the impact it could have and on how it can be improved, which should be in all of our interest. There are many individuals and organizations that should have been properly consulted before and during the drafting of the bill.

This is a critically important issue that we are working to solve urgently, but that does not mean we cannot put the time and resources towards making sure the law reflects the contributions and concerns of the various stakeholders who have spoken out over the last few days about where the bill can and should be improved.

For example, the National Association of Women and the Law published a press release responding to the Liberals' Bill C-28. It states:

Despite the assurances of some defence lawyers and their allies that reliance on extreme intoxication will be rare, research analyzing the extreme intoxication defence indicates that it will be raised with some regularity. Indeed, research shows that it will be used overwhelmingly by men, and that the majority of victims will be women.

They call Bill C-28 “a missed opportunity to close the door on the use of the extreme intoxication defence where alcohol alone is used.” I think that is a very worthy discussion for us as parliamentarians to have.

To be clear, this is just one stakeholder organization whose perspective and expertise we need to hear and seriously consider when we are talking about strengthening the law to better protect women. Our study of this legislation and the law that it impacts will take place in the fall, and this will ensure that experts and stakeholders are properly consulted.

It is our role and responsibility, as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, to hold the government accountable, and where we so often see the Liberals failing Canadians is when it comes to matters of justice and their obligations to victims of crime.

Conservatives will continue to raise up the voices of victims and victims' advocates. We look forward to making significant progress in strengthening Canada's laws to better protect vulnerable Canadians.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for both his support and his speech. I also look forward to the discussion at committee in the fall on this issue.

LEAF, one of the major organizations representing women, said, “LEAF supports this thoughtful, nuanced, and constitutional legislation to address the narrow gap resulting from the [Supreme Court of Canada] decisions.”

I wonder if my friend opposite could comment on that. I recognize that there may be some limitations that he identifies, but the general consensus that has been received is that this is a sound bill that is based on consultation with many experts in the field.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his work on the justice committee. It is good to work with him.

The point is that we have a justice committee, and when the government brings in legislation and it gets to committee, we study it and bring in experts. LEAF has made commentary and no doubt would be a witness if this bill were before our committee. Likewise, the National Association of Women and the Law has made commentary in public and would also likely be a witness at our committee.

That is the point. Without being rushed, we would be able to study this bill at committee and hopefully improve it if necessary. However, by its being introduced last Friday, we do not have that opportunity. We need to act with urgency, but in the fall we need to make sure that if there is any way to improve the law beyond this, we take further action.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, how important is it for us in Parliament to ensure that we are strengthening laws to make sure we are protecting women at this time, who are often targets of sexual assault?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. We have heard from different organizations that the Supreme Court decision puts women at risk and that we have to act with urgency. We called on the government to act right away, because it knew there was a vulnerability there, and we know the response could have been sooner.

As I said, we waited 40 days for this, and I would have liked for those different women's organizations to give input at our committee. As some of them are suggesting, we could have improved the bill.

The hon. member is right that we need to act with urgency, making any improvement to the law to fill this gap. We need to do that now, but always with an eye to looking at how we can further strengthen the law in the future.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the importance of addressing gender‑based violence, and I hear him loud and clear. However, when he talks about proposing improvements to the bill this fall, does he have any idea what he would like to propose if he ever wanted to revisit this?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, one of the proposals put forward by the National Association of Women and the Law is absolutely shutting the door on the defence of self-induced extreme intoxication caused solely by the consumption of alcohol. That is one proposal that I would have liked to hear some more thought and evidence on.

Also, on the threshold that is in place, there are concerns that the threshold for the prosecution to meet in order to get a conviction would be set too high by this legislation. There are suggestions of alternatives that would lower the bar for prosecution. We want to make sure that offenders are held accountable for violent acts committed against fellow Canadians and that this court decision does not result in people who should be held accountable not being held accountable.

I am always open to hearing diverse views on how we can improve and strengthen legislation, and we need to take the time at justice committee to do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑28 this evening, in part because it got me to look over my old class notes. I am trained as a lawyer, but I certainly do not claim to be a criminal lawyer. As a result, while reading the Brown decision, I had to go back and review some of the concepts to refresh my memory.

Tonight's debate is taking place in the knowledge that, in any case, the bill will be passed at the end of the discussions that will take place. The content of the bill will not be changed in any way this evening. I think this may be a good opportunity to recap the events that led to the bill we are debating. Furthermore, I will certainly have a lot of fun this summer discussing the bill with my friends in criminal law, who already had a few things to say to me when they read the content of the bill. I hope this is something that will be done again in the fall because there are potential improvements to be made to Bill C‑28.

To explain why we are talking about extreme intoxication as a defence, we have to go back to the Daviault case. The year is 1989. Seventy-three-year-old Henri Daviault is a chronic alcoholic. One evening, a friend of his wife's asks him to bring her some alcohol. After drinking seven or eight beers at a bar, he sets out with a 40-ounce bottle of brandy to bring to her. He arrives at the home of the woman, who is partially paralyzed and uses a wheelchair. All we know of what happened next is that he drank all or most of the 40 ounces of brandy, and the next morning found himself naked in the woman's bed after sexually assaulting her, which he does not remember.

Mr. Daviault pleads automatism. He argues that he was in such an extreme state of intoxication that it was almost like sleepwalking. He was not aware of what he was doing. This is not the same as simply forgetting the next morning what happened the night before. This is about not being able to control one's body. His defence is supported by toxicological evidence. One expert states that after consuming that amount of alcohol, most people of normal constitution would have ended up in a coma or even dead.

The evidence is accepted by the Supreme Court, which considered whether a state of intoxication so extreme that an accused is in a state that bears a striking resemblance to automatism or mental illness as defined in section 16 of the Criminal Code can be used as a defence following a crime that requires not specific intent, but only general intent. Can this be used as a defence? The court decides that, yes, the principle of automatism can be used as a defence in cases of general intent offences. It is almost a though a new defence has been created.

The majority opinion in Daviault was criticized for its “alarming lack of consideration of the social context of sexual assault particularly for women and children”. At the time, Professor Grant argued that “alcohol is often implicated in gendered violence, and therefore strong equality protections are necessary”. She wrote, “The suggestion that someone could be too drunk to be convicted of sexual assault shocked the public's sense of justice and common sense”.

Parliament was therefore kind of stuck with the Supreme Court decision that allowed the defence of extreme intoxication in cases involving offences such as sexual assault and other general intent offences such as assault. That was the background to Parliament's adoption of the old section 33.1, which was at issue in Brown. Section 33.1 eliminated the defence of self-induced intoxication akin to automatism applied to the violent offences identified in subsection 33.1(3) where the accused departed markedly from the standard of care described in subsection 33.1(2).

In its response to Daviault, Parliament sought to supply a link between the intention to become intoxicated and the intention to commit a crime of violence identified by the majority. In a way, the two intentions were conflated, which was part of the problem in Brown with respect to the constitutionality of section 33.1. I will come back to that.

The purpose of drafting the section at that time was, as noted in the preamble to what was then Bill C-72, the fact that domestic and sexual violence have “a particularly disadvantaging impact on the equal participation of women and children in society”. Parliament was particularly mindful that the accused should not be allowed to use self-induced intoxication to justify acts of violence against women and children.

The purpose of using the Oakes test was to determine whether section 33.1 passed the test of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and whether it was constitutional. In essence, this was Brown's challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada; he stated that this section was not constitutional and he should not be subject to it.

When applying the Oakes test, it must first be established that there is an infringement of the Charter caused by the wording of the section. Is there an infringement? The Crown submitted its arguments and the judges held that, contrary to the Crown's contention, the “marked departure” standard of fault in paragraph 33.1(2) clearly applies to the violent offence, not to the act of self-induced intoxication.

As I was saying, Parliament sort of combined these two principles, so that when a person committed an offence, such as sexual assault or assault, they were always departing from the standard of good conduct. That person automatically ended up being subject to section 33.1 and having no defence to put forward.

What was said, and what the judges held, was that section 33.1 operated akin to a regime of absolute liability by allowing conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally or voluntarily committed the offence. Section 33.1 improperly substituted intent to become intoxicated with intent to commit a violent offence.

Section 33.1 directed that the accused was criminally responsible even in the case of involuntary conduct. Because involuntariness negates the actus reus of the offence, involuntary conduct is not criminal, and Canadian law recognizes the requirement of voluntariness for the conviction of a crime, the person was deprived of an aspect of fundamental justice. The judges wrote that the defence of automatism denies the element of voluntariness and therefore negates the actus reus of the offence. Involuntary conduct is understood to be genuinely exculpatory because, while the prohibited act was harmful, the accused lacks the capacity to answer for what they did. A physically involuntary act, however wrongful in outward appearance, is not a guilty act that can be imputed to an accused.

What this means is that this defence, in this context, appears to be a violation of a charter right, because it amounts to an absolute liability offence. As soon as a right is violated by the Charter, the Oakes test can be used to determine whether upholding the section in question is justified, in the context of today's society and in spite of the fact that it infringes on a charter right.

There are several steps to the Oakes test. First, the section in question must respond to a pressing and substantial need. Then, there must be a rational connection between the objective and the means used to achieve it. After that, it must be proven that the section is minimally impairing and that there is no less rights-impairing means of achieving the objective. Lastly, there must be proportionality between the effects of the section and the objective.

For the first step, there must be a pressing and substantial objective. As I already said, parliamentarians went through this exercise when they drafted section 33.1. This was even mentioned in the preamble, which pointed to the broad reasons the section was enacted in the period following Daviault, namely the protection of the victims of extremely intoxicated violence and a sense that the law should hold offenders accountable for the bodily harm they cause to others when, by choice, they become extremely intoxicated.

It was in this context and with these two specific goals in mind that Parliament drafted section 33.1. The Court agreed that the section served a pressing and substantial purpose and cited Justice Lamer in Robinson: “There is no question that the protection of the public from intoxicated offenders is of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom”. The first part of the Oakes test was satisfied.

The second part of the Oakes test is that it must be proven that the means has a rational connection to the objective. I will quote the Supreme Court, which upheld the Court of Appeal ruling that the deterrent and denunciating effects of section 33.1 provide a rational connection to Parliament's protective objective.

In addition, s. 33.1 is rationally connected to the objective of holding individuals accountable, in as full a manner as possible, for the choice to become extremely intoxicated and the violence committed while in that state. It is obvious that where a person is foreclosed from advancing a defence that could result in an acquittal, that person is held accountable for something they otherwise would not be.

The second part of the Oakes test is satisfied here.

It is on the third part of the test that things start to get dicey. That is where the court is suggesting to Parliament—which is rather exceptional— what legislators could do to rewrite section 33.1 so as to make it constitutional. The court analyzed the third part of the Oakes test to see if there was any way for the rights of the accused to be less substantially impaired while still meeting the original objectives of that section of the act.

The court suggested two options. The first, and some members have spoken about it, was to create a separate offence that would criminalize the act of becoming so extremely intoxicated that a person puts themselves in a state that is dangerous to others. However, Parliament has dismissed that option in the past for two different reasons.

I, too, submit that this option would not be the right course of action to replace what we currently have in Bill C-28. It could be a subsidiary or complementary approach, but it is not the right way to replace section 33.1. In fact, it could open the door to lesser sentences for offences committed in a highly intoxicated state. Some people even called it a “drunkenness discount”. For example, the sentence for voluntarily becoming highly intoxicated could correspond to dangerous driving and the person might avoid being sentenced for aggravated or sexual assault.

The other problem is that the real harm caused by the offender would not be recognized. This approach would imply that the offender should not be held responsible for the harm they did by committing assault or sexual assault. This option should not replace the current wording of Bill C-28, but could be used as a complementary approach.

The second option upheld by the court was to review, to a certain extent, the question of the marked departure by intoxication. The idea was that individuals could still be found guilty where there was a genuine marked departure from the situation in which they had placed themselves. Parliament asserted that it was open to Parliament to enact legislation to hold extremely intoxicated persons accountable for violent crimes where they had chosen to create the risk of harm by ingesting intoxicants.

In other words, perpetrators could be held accountable for the offence in subsection 33.1 if the legal standard of criminal negligence required a demonstration that both the risk of loss of control and the risk of the resulting harm were reasonably foreseeable. In either scenario, Parliament would enact a law based on the moral instinct that individuals who choose to become extremely intoxicated can legitimately be held responsible for creating a situation where they threaten the integrity of others.

That is what Parliament is proposing as the alternative to the current subsection 33.1(2). Since it had proved that there were other legislative solutions that would achieve the same objectives and be less harmful to the accused, the court concluded that the minimal impairment standard of the Oakes test had not been met. As a result, the court found that section 33.1 should be declared of no force or effect.

Finally, the last component requires proportionality between the limitations to the section of the law and the legislative objectives. The court ruled that the risk of imprisoning the morally innocent outweighed the objective of protecting society.

All of this influenced the wording of the new section 33.1. Now, rather than associating the departure from the standard with the offence, it is actually associated with the person's consumption, that is, the way in which the person induced their own state of extreme intoxication.

I want to raise two points in connection with that. As I said, Bill C‑28 is being passed a little hastily, unfortunately. The courts tasked with interpreting its provisions will not be able to consult the debates of the House on this bill to understand the legislator's intent because they were so short, abbreviated even. That is kind of problematic.

Nevertheless, there was also an urgent need for action. If the legal void created by invalidating section 33.1 was not filled, we could have seen a situation like what happened right after Daviault, when there was a distinct possibility that an accused could raise the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism. In the absence of any structure, it made sense to act quickly.

Having said that, certain questions remain unanswered, and there have been some criticisms. I am thinking in particular of Professor Hugues Parent, who was quoted as saying the following in yesterday's edition of La Presse:

“The problem—and it is a serious problem—is that by limiting extreme intoxication to a state akin to automatism, the government is discounting states of intoxication that do not disrupt the individual's awareness, but that affect their sense of reality, such as psychosis.”

Automatism induced by a substance, such as a drug, is “very, very rare”, said Mr. Parent. In his more than 20 years of research on this subject, he saw the courts accept no more than four cases.

However, cases of psychosis triggered following drug consumption, where the highly intoxicated individuals are aware of their actions, “occur very frequently, as police and psychiatrists will tell you”. But these individuals are not covered by Bill C‑28...

This deserves another look. I submit that the automatism defence is a common law creation and that it is not expressly mentioned in the wording of the proposed section 33.1, any more than psychosis is. The interesting thing about the Brown decision is that it says that Brown was in a psychotic state akin to automatism. Maybe that is covered by section 33.1, but maybe not. That is worth exploring.

The proposed section 33.1 reads as follows: “A person who, by reason of self-induced extreme intoxication, lacks the general intent or voluntariness ordinarily required to commit an offence referred to in subsection (3), nonetheless commits the offence”. Does that not also encompass psychosis? Is there not a mens rea defence that in any case would fall outside section 33.1? It is a valid question.

As I was saying, it would be good if the government could avoid falling into the same old bad habits this fall when the time comes for the ex post facto review of this section in committee. If we encounter pitfalls, if we observe that the interpretation is not clear when it comes to substance addiction, the type of drug consumed, the individual's predisposition, or the emotional or family circumstances, I hope the government will have the humility to be open to amending the proposed section.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint‑Jean for her speech.

I am glad that she said she was not a criminal law expert, because if she were, we would have gotten another great lesson. I congratulate her on giving such an excellent, well-documented and detailed speech, as usual, especially on a topic like this one.

With respect to Bill C‑28, I must admit that I am not naturally a particularly open-minded person. This is a humble confession, but I was reassured to see that this is being taken seriously by the Minister of Justice and by parliamentarians. I also want to commend my colleague from Fundy Royal, who collaborated in the drafting of this bill.

The member said in her speech that the government would refer this bill to parliamentary committee to address certain aspects. We had to move quickly in response to the Supreme Court decision, but is the member, as a lawyer, reassured by the fact that this issue will be dealt with again in parliamentary committee this fall?

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

Madam Speaker, in a way, I am reassured that it has already been announced that there will be an ex post facto review of the measure. I would hope that legal professionals will be invited. My criminal law colleagues for both the Crown and the defence would certainly have some interesting things to say. I imagine it will be most interesting to analyze the section as applied.

I will say it again. The government must “consider the objective foreseeability of the risk that the consumption of the intoxicating substances could cause extreme intoxication and lead the person to harm another person”.

What is “objective foreseeability”? As I said, how should substance addiction, the type of drug consumed, the individual's predisposition, their past experience with drugs, and their emotional and family circumstances be taken into account? All these factors open the door to myriad interpretations. Does the government want to clarify that or not? That is a valid question. Perhaps there will be more answers in parliamentary committee.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

I would like to just reflect on the past 40 days or so since the Supreme Court decision came about. The government has moved expeditiously to put forward this legislation. We thank the member and her party for their support and look forward to studying this bill at committee later on this year.

I want to ask her what she has been hearing from key stakeholders. I know that on our end, for example, we have heard this from LEAF:

LEAF supports this thoughtful, nuanced, and constitutional legislation to address the narrow gap resulting from the SCC decisions.

Could the member comment on what she has been hearing from key stakeholders in her riding and in Quebec?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not the justice critic, so, unfortunately, I cannot say that I have had the privilege of meeting with women's groups, among others, that might have had a thing or two to say. I opted to focus more on the practical legislative aspect of the issue with my colleagues, some of whom are more knowledgeable about criminal law. They said there may or may not be some room for improvement. Perhaps once the parliamentary committee completes its study, it will conclude that Bill C‑28 is well written.

What is important to remember is that we have a Supreme Court ruling explaining why section 33.1 was not constitutional and suggesting an approach for drafting the new bill. What we do not want to do is draft a new bill on behalf of women's groups and others that will also be overturned by the court in the end. We have to keep that in mind.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, everyone has talked about the importance of prevention and, above all, the need to take action on sexual assault.

Could my colleague also share her comments on the need for the government to act more comprehensively to end violence and sexual assault against women?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that in some ways, it is even more important to tackle this problem than it is to address Bill C‑28. It is important to remember that the bill deals with extremely rare cases. Extreme intoxication to the point of automatism is not a common occurrence. We have seen it only a few times over a period of 30 years, while sexual assault offences are sadly far more common. With that in mind, it is even more important to tackle this problem directly and much more aggressively. Although what we are doing tonight is absolutely necessary, the focus should be more on sexual assault.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am just going to ask my colleague a question and take the opportunity to thank her once again for her work during this session.

Unfortunately, the session is ending with a bill that touches on a very sensitive issue. Women's groups have many questions and doubts. It is clear that the issue of defences in cases of sexual assault is extremely delicate.

What message does this bill send, as part of a continuum? I see that the stars are aligning at the moment for us to work on this issue. I am thinking in particular of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Hockey Canada case. There has been a lot of talk about the importance of working on the culture of toxic masculinity and how we educate young men about their behaviour towards women. Similarly, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women just did a study on intimate partner violence. Today, this bill is being introduced. These are extreme cases. How does this add to a series of really important measures to be able to work on this important issue?

Statistics show that people are often intoxicated in cases of sexual assault. The numbers are staggering.

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

Madam Speaker, there is the whole issue of how to deal with different types of sexual assault. My colleague mentioned a few. I would say that this is a different issue. We cannot see the bill as being part of a continuum because we are responding to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, and we could not anticipate exactly when it would be handed down. It is rather unfortunate that the ruling was handed down at the end of the session. We could not tell the Supreme Court of Canada to delay its decision until the fall or to release it sooner so we would have more time. That was out of our control.

I therefore do not think it belongs in a continuum of measures for other problems. It is really something that fell into our lap. The Supreme Court of Canada could have decided not to strike down the section. Then we would have had nothing to do. In short, we had no control over the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, and we are never supposed to have any.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking tonight on Bill C-28, though perhaps not to be speaking at this hour, but I am glad to see Parliament acting quickly in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Brown, which found section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting the use of the extreme intoxication defence, unconstitutional. That was on May 13 of this year, only some five weeks ago.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court found section 33.1 violated the charter, both section 7, which provides protection for life, liberty and security of the person, and section 11(d), which protects the presumption of innocence. It is also important to note that our legal system has gone back and forth over time on the legality of using extreme intoxication as a defence in crimes requiring an element of intent.

The Supreme Court of Canada, before the charter, in 1978, in a case called R. v. Leary, said it never could be used as a defence in those kinds of cases. However, after the charter was established in 1994, in a case called R. v. Daviault, the Supreme Court overruled what I guess we could call the previous common law rule and restored the possibility of using extreme intoxication as a defence, finding that the prohibition violated the charter.

The details of the Daviault case were particularly horrible, which other members recounted earlier, and they actually caused Parliament to act fairly quickly in 1995 to restore the prohibition on the use of extreme intoxication as a defence by inserting section 33.1 of the Criminal Code. That is the section the Supreme Court now has said is unconstitutional once again.

I want to stop here and remind everyone that simple intoxication has never been a defence in Canada for crimes of violence of any sort, including sexual assault, and nothing about the current Supreme Court decision or about Bill C-28 changes that. Simple intoxication is not a criminal defence in this country, but there has been a great deal of misinformation, particularly online, that has misled people into thinking that somehow simply being drunk is a defence in criminal law in Canada.

We have to remember that extreme intoxication is a very specific and limited circumstance, a specific circumstance where impairment is so severe that people have no control over their bodies, their minds have no control over their bodies or, in common language, they are unconscious about what they are doing. Even though these cases are rare, like other members who have spoken before me, I am glad to see us acting quickly to restrict the possibility of anyone being able to escape responsibility for their actions by using the extreme intoxication defence and avoiding responsibility, therefore, for the harms that they have caused others.

Many groups have urged us to act quickly, but I acknowledge that there are some others who are concerned that we risk not getting it exactly right by moving too quickly. That is why I am glad to see that the motion we are dealing with tonight has a provision in it for hearings at the justice committee in the fall. It is unusual for us to conduct hearings on a law so soon after passing it, but I think it gives us a chance to review what we are doing here tonight to see if we have in fact had unforeseen problems or to see if in fact there is more that we need to do. That is why I am confident with us moving ahead tonight because we will do that review in the fall.

The Supreme Court of Canada itself pointed out a couple of options available to us as parliamentarians to restrict the possible use of an extreme intoxication defence while still respecting the charter. I believe that Bill C-28 does this well, in ways that would effectively re-establish the principle that in almost all cases, extreme intoxication is no defence.

How would Bill C-28 do this? It would do it in two ways. In order to make a claim of extreme intoxication, defendants will have to provide expert evidence in their own cases that their intoxication was so severe as to amount to what in law is called automatism. This is a well-known legal concept and a specific state already defined in law that the mind is not in control of the body. Therefore, defendants have to present evidence in their own cases, not that it is possible that they were extremely intoxicated and not just claiming that they were extremely intoxicated, but that they were, according to expert evidence presented, in a state of extreme intoxication. That evidence, of course, will have to be presented in court and can be tested in court.

The second way in which Bill C-28 would make it difficult to use this defence is that the prosecution would be able to argue that even if the accused has proved that they were in a state of extreme intoxication, they failed on the standard of criminal negligence because they failed to take the measures a reasonable person would have taken to avoid causing harm.

If a person takes intoxicants or combines prescription drugs and illegal drugs or combines alcohol and magic mushrooms or whatever it is that the accused was doing, and if they, as a reasonable person, should have known the possibility of losing control and the possibility of violence, then they should have taken measures to limit that possibility, and if they did not, then they could not use this defence.

My summary, in plain language, is that the Supreme Court of Canada cracked open the door on the use of extreme intoxication defence, and what we are doing with Bill C-28 is shutting that door as far as possible while still being consistent with the Charter of Rights.

The Minister of Justice has presented a charter statement for Bill C-28 that certifies that Bill C-28 is in fact charter compliant and consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in R. v. Brown. I have no reason to doubt the content of that charter statement.

As likely the last speaker on Bill C-28 tonight before we adopt it, I do not want to risk going on at too great a length, but let me say that after a House sometimes has had a bad reputation with the public for being overly partisan and polarized and unable to look after the public good, I believe we are demonstrating something different here tonight.

Through the confidence and supply agreement between the Liberals and New Democrats, I believe we have already demonstrated that in a minority Parliament we can co-operate and work together to get things done, but Bill C-28 demonstrates an even broader ability of parliamentarians from all parties to come together co-operatively and to act swiftly in the public interest. That is what we will be doing tonight when we pass Bill C-28 a little over a month after a Supreme Court decision that cracked that door open to escaping responsibility for violent acts by claiming extreme intoxication.

What we are doing tonight is once again, as I said, making that a remote possibility. We are making it the remote possibility that it should be.

I hope we come across other opportunities in this Parliament to have the same zeal for working together. One of those opportunities is on the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour, and there is a link here because we are talking about violence primarily against women.

Twice the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has recommended to the House that the government introduce legislation to make coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence. Such legislation would recognize that coercive and controlling behaviour is in itself a form of violence, but it would also recognize that it is very often a precursor to physical violence.

As I said, twice now the justice committee has recommended this to the House, and I hope we will find an opportunity to get the same all-party agreement and the same ability to move forward on that piece of legislation as well.

In conclusion, sometimes I am very proud to be a part of this Parliament, and tonight, on Bill C-28, is one of those nights.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it warms the heart to hear my hon. colleague is proud to be a member of the House tonight. I commend him for his work on the justice committee.

In light of the compressed timeline we are dealing with, we all recognize the government needed to act with extreme urgency when this decision came down. Is the member open to working with members of all parties on the justice committee in the fall to hear from witnesses who may have ideas on how this legislation, which will have already passed by then, could perhaps warrant further amendments to the Criminal Code to best close this loophole?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to state again, as I have many times, that the hon. member for Fundy Royal and I have a good working relationship, despite the fact there are many things we might not agree on. Sometimes there is common ground, as there is tonight.

Certainly I agree with him. Though it was not our idea and I believe it may have been his idea, the motion we are dealing with would order the justice committee to conduct such hearings in the fall. As I said in my speech, it will give us the opportunity to see whether we have done the right thing and whether there is more we can do on the issue of violence against women through extreme intoxication.

Absolutely, the answer is yes.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his very thoughtful presentation today. I also want to thank him for his co-operation at the justice committee and for his hard work.

I want to ask him what he is hearing from key stakeholders. I know we have been engaged with a number of key stakeholders who are quite supportive of the legislation. His co-operation is essential to getting this passed. I want to know what his stakeholders are telling him about this legislation and if there is any feedback on its overall intent, as well as the balance that we were able to find in coming forward today.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, my experience is the same as what the minister and others have expressed, which is that the vast majority of people I have heard from in this short period of time, especially ordinary citizens, would like to see us move very quickly to close this possible loophole. The majority of organizations that are more active in legal reform have also said they think this bill accomplishes what we need to do.

As I said in my speech, there are some, but only a few I have heard from in the past few days, that think that we could do more or that we could make closing the door even tighter. I am not sure they are correct about that, given the Supreme Court decision, but I am certainly willing to hear from them in the hearings we will conduct this fall.

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

Madam Speaker, in terms of the stakeholders that did come forward, I know that LEAF has shown support for this piece of legislation. However, LEAF specifically called for a great deal more education within the justice system, and more advocacy for women who deal with, and have to go through, the criminal justice system when they experience violence.

Could he talk about what the government should be doing in order to address those concerns that LEAF brought forward?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, in justice, when talking about a number of issues, there is always an area where we need to do more. That is the issue of violence against women. We have heard the Liberal government talk about its action plan for quite a long time now, and I think most of us are ready to see that plan and would like to make sure there is actually action in the action plan.

As I mentioned toward the end of my speech, the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour is a form of violence, but it also usually leads to physical violence eventually. We have had all-party agreement at the justice committee; we achieved that twice. We have held hearings at the justice committee. I express my hope, and I do it again, that sometime very soon in this Parliament we will get the same all-party agreement to move quickly on that issue as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There being no further members rising, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 21, the motion is deemed adopted and Bill C-28 is deemed read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 12 a.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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, Liberal, 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, Liberal, 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, Liberal, 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, Liberal, 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)