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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you to the member opposite for your passionate words. I hear what you're saying, Ms. Damoff. We've sat here through I don't know how many meetings and hours. There have been a lot. You mentioned a couple of groups, Ms. Damoff, who were supportive, but we have pages and pages and have heard testimony from stakeholders who almost unanimously feel as though the red flag measures are going to be costly, ineffective and redundant.

I do have to rely on my good colleague Mr. Motz, who has been in policing for 35 years, and I'm sure Mr. Chiang has a lot more information and expertise on this than I do, as, quite frankly, maybe a lot of people around this table do. I can't speak for everybody, but we have to rely on them and we have to make our best decisions on the information that we've been given. If we don't listen to the witnesses who came in to speak to us, then what really are we doing and why are we bothering bringing them in?

Under section 117 of the Criminal Code, police services have the authority to act immediately with or without a warrant when there's a genuine concern for public safety. The police currently have the power to seek a warrant to seize firearms in several circumstances. These powers are currently sufficient and preferable.

Red flag measures lead to secret hearings and complaints, in which the complainant is prevented from mounting a defence and afterwards is barred from seeking access to information related to a prohibition order. Canada's court system is already significantly under-resourced and backlogged. This measure is ineffective in an emergency because the process of going before a judge to get a prohibition order as proposed to that in Bill C-21 will take at least a day if not a lot longer in some areas. Red flag measures are likely to lead to significant charter litigation surrounding the accused's rights to a fair trial and a full answer in defence.

All we can do, Chair, is make our best decisions, and I won't be supporting this today. I do feel this is going to hinder going forward. I think what's on the books currently is a better option. That's just from what I have heard from all of the witnesses and, as I said, from some of the experts who I am here with. I can't support this today and I'll leave it to the rest of my colleagues to listen to what their words are.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e).

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The debate over Bill C‑21 is very political. We've had a lot of misinformation and accusations on both sides of the floor. However, when it comes to the “red flag” measure, one thing is certain: we're talking about facts.

First of all, I like to say that I agree with my colleague Ms. Michaud of the Bloc Québécois. We Conservatives came to the same conclusion. At first, we looked favourably on introducing the “red flag” measure, but we must admit that, according to the victims' groups themselves, the measure doesn't work at all.

I know I'm kind of repeating what my colleague said, but I want to say it in French, especially since I didn't understand everything he said.

I'm talking about organizations like the National Association of Women and the Law, for example. The committee heard from Heidi Rathjen, for example, of PolyRemembers, a prominent group in this debate, as we know. These individuals made it clear to the Liberal government that they shouldn't pass the red flag legislation because it's not good for women, for victims. Louise Riendeau of the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale said the same thing. If anyone knows what they're talking about here, it's the individuals who work with victims, with women who live in fear on a daily basis. It's important to consider what these individuals have told the committee.

On that note, I want to tell my colleague from the NDP that we're not filibustering, we're establishing key facts. Bill C‑21 goes beyond firearms. We're talking about regulations that directly affect victims. The Liberal government is pushing these regulations forward when we don't understand why. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party agree that this doesn't work, as the victims' groups have made clear.

The same thing goes for the police, who are responsible for enforcing the law. Police officers deal with women who call them because they are in trouble and afraid. They, too, say the proposed measure doesn't work.

With respect to Indigenous groups, it seems to me that we usually hear from them. I remember when I was a member of this committee and we were studying Bill C‑71, the Liberals didn't want to hear from Indigenous people about the transfer of firearms. It's strange, but I called one Indigenous person to appear and they explained to us that they did not feel the measure worked.

Committees have a duty to hear from everyone, especially when it comes to critical bills affecting public safety.

My colleague Ms. Damoff said earlier that physicians agreed. It's funny, they agreed at first, but after studying the issue, analyzing it and checking things out, they completely changed their minds. On October 21, the association stated that it could not support the measure, which did not work, and it gave its reasons.

I'd like to understand why the Liberals are maintaining a pro-“red flag” position. Let's remember that we're not talking about weapons here. I know the Liberals like to do some marketing and speak specifically of the tool the firearm is. This is really about protecting victims in their relationships with spouses. Everyone is saying that we shouldn't do this because it's dangerous for victims. Why won't the Liberals budge?

As I said, this measure was introduced because at first we thought, myself included, that the idea made sense, but in the end we realize that it doesn't work. Why not just remove it?

That's why, as my colleague Mr. Motz said, we will vote against this clause.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Since we we're talking about clause 4, with Mr. Julian's indulgence, I will continue to talk about why red flag laws are a problem, based on the testimony we heard at committee.

The Canadian Bar Association said this:

Some have argued that the proposed provisions are a useful suicide prevention tool. We find that the deployment of tactical teams and subjecting mentally ill people to high stress situations with possible criminal consequences is not a suitable means of handling this issue. In fact, it poses the very real risk that mentally ill individuals will not seek help and instead conceal issues fearing that their doctor, psychiatrist, or any other person might seek these heavy sanctions against them.

The defence lawyer Mr. Friedman said the following:

The concern is that the courts will be flooded with people with complaints that have been investigated by the police and found to be meritless.

We don't need more backlog in our courts when the police are already taking extensive enforcement action on firearms public safety concerns.

He went on to suggest this:

Access to justice is an enormous problem right now.... We are waiting 12 to 18 months for a trial in those courts....

...by cutting out that screening mechanism of police investigation, we're essentially inviting people to flood the courts. They're almost all going to be self-represented individuals, which poses all sorts of other challenges.... They should be going to the police.

He went on to say the following:

[We're] basically creating a funnel such that the only people who are going to access that resource are people who have been denied by the police. They've been denied by the police because the police take their jobs very seriously.

...In almost 15 years of practice, I've never seen that. I've seen...far more overzealous police enforcement than absolutely non-reactive.

The Canadian Bar Association also added another couple of quotes:

Section 110.2(1) is particularly worrisome because of criminal charges that arise from s.110.1 weapons prohibition order. It’s unclear how a s.110.2(1) order denying access to information would apply with the Crown’s disclosure obligations under R. v. Stinchcombe, if criminal charges are laid against the subject of a s.110.1 weapons prohibition. Section 110.2(1) as written will make it ripe for Charter litigation surrounding an accused’s right to a fair trial and full answer and defence.

They also say this:

Police officers themselves are vulnerable to false complaints under these provisions. An aggrieved individual, who was arrested, can present a one-sided account of the interaction in court. There is no cross-examination or any ability to check records. Their identity can be sealed, preventing a further investigation. Under the current law, the initial seizure result is the revocation of licenses, which allows police or the military to continue to perform duties until they respond to the allegations. The new provisions would result in a firearm prohibition that removes the officer from active duty.

That was from the Canadian Bar Association.

There are two last ones.

The firearms expert Tony Bernardo from the Canadian Shooting Sports Association said the following:

...we've been living with red flag laws for 25 years now. This is not new. This is an enhancement of existing laws. For 25 years now, if someone were to make a complaint that they were being threatened with a firearm, the police would have the ability to come right that minute and remove the firearm. That's in Bill C-68, in the Firearms Act. That's been around for a long time.

A. J. Somerset, the author of Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun, put it this way:

If this is viewed as being a way of protecting people who are at risk, women in abusive relationships, for example, I think it's asking a lot of those people to figure out...how to go to...[court], how to make this application, how to make sure that application gets heard quickly.

Mr. Chair, it is abundantly obvious to me that these red flag provisions create more harm than they do good for those whom we are trying to protect who are vulnerable and who face domestic violence situations.

I will tell you, from first-hand experience from actually doing these investigations for many years, when police receive a complaint that there is a domestic violence situation, that situation—especially over the last 15 years plus—has been taken extremely seriously.

There is an immediate response. There is a fulsome investigation. There is authority to seize firearms immediately, to hold those firearms, to take statements from witnesses and to put the accused in custody, if there is evidence, and to have them before the courts on a bail hearing. Those provisions don't exist in these red flag laws. They actually create an opportunity for the abuser to continue to abuse and confusion for the victim. I'm astounded by what I see here. It's really a failed attempt to actually make a difference.

If a neighbour calls the police, currently we respond to domestic assaults. If a spouse or anybody else calls and believes that a person is in imminent danger, for example, we determine whether there are firearms in the residence. We determine the safety risk. We involve our victim services unit. We involve whatever resource we need to ensure the safety of this victim and then the proper dealing with the accused. The ability to report a spouse or a public safety concern with a firearm has existed since the Firearms Act was passed into law in 1995.

With the current legislation—outside of what is trying to be done here with this new Bill C-21—there are currently four escalating options that exist in law.

First, under the Firearms Act, the chief firearms officer can give notice to revoke a licence. The person may continue to keep firearms while disputing the revocation in court. This is a revocation of a licence, not a prohibition order.

Second, a police officer or a CFO can apply to a provincial court for a prohibition order if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that it is not in the best interests of safety. Notice is given and the firearm owner can provide evidence and contest the order at a hearing.

Third, a police officer may seek a warrant for search and seizure. It can be done without notice, but it also cancels the firearms licence, and there is no prohibition until after a full hearing.

Fourth, in pressing circumstances, as I said previously, police have the authority to go straight to seizing a firearm if they deem it is in the best interests of public safety to do so, like ongoing domestic assault, a suicide attempt, etc. There is no firearms prohibition until the court hearing. If the police do this properly, they must go back through the warrant process.

What we heard at committee from witnesses was that this provision gives ordinary citizens in this country extraordinary powers to cause search and seizure of a legal owner's property with an “act first, ask questions later”. As we heard at committee, this is rife with opportunities for abuse.

As I said, police have authority to confiscate firearms on public safety grounds and can do so efficiently through existing legislation. We know that the courts are currently extremely backlogged, and the prohibition order that removes firearms without notice or dispute may potentially have grave impacts on military or police if it's not followed according to the existing law.

As I've said, the goal of any legislation, specifically around Bill C-21, should be the protection of Canadians—public safety. If we have a provision that is absolutely contrary to what the bill's supposed attention is, then why are we continuing to push it? I would suggest that the government should consider absolutely removing this clause. I can't support it—I won't support it—but the government should be looking at removing clauses with anything to do with red flag laws completely from this bill.

We have heard from countless witnesses, and I've only mentioned a few and read their testimony at this committee, who say, “Please stop. You're putting the people we work with, people in our communities, at risk by continuing to pursue red flag laws in this legislation. Stop it.”

With that, I would say that we need to do just that. We need to listen to the experts we had here in committee and actually defeat this clause in the bill.

Thank you.

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

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This committee has talked a great deal about the “red flag” measure. We've had experts come and tell us more about the issue, particularly the impact the measure could have on people's lives. I must say that at first glance, it looked like a promising measure that would protect women. So I was very surprised when I heard women tell the committee that it wouldn't help them any more, and even that it could be harmful to them.

I want to read an excerpt from a letter the National Association of Women and the Law sent to the Minister of Public Safety on May 16, 2022, specifically addressing the “red flag” measure:

There is no support for downloading or eroding the responsibility of law enforcement and other government officials to implement gun laws. They are, and must remain, responsible and accountable for ensuring that firearms licenses are denied and revoked when there are potential risks to women. Citizens or other organizations, much less potential victims, should not be expected to put themselves at risk by going to court to request action that should be immediate and within the direct responsibility of police. It is widely recognized that women are in greatest danger during and after separation. Shifting the onus of enforcement to women and third parties, as Bill C‑21's “Red Flag” provisions attempt to do, is a guaranteed route to increased fatality. We do support efforts to use all mechanisms currently available in the system, coupled with additional powers and community education, to identify risks and to expeditiously remove firearms from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or any other person.

What this association is trying to say is that we currently have tools available to women and they do not need this additional tool, this “red flag” type of measure proposed in Bill C‑21.

They provide the following examples:

In the cases of the Portapique massacre, the Desmond family shooting and many other cases...people were aware of patterns of threats and violence against women. In some cases, police were in fact notified, but no action was taken. If women's safety is of genuine concern to your government, the following specific measures and interventions are required...

Most of the measures outlined by the National Association of Women and the Law are already in place. I'm going to save you the trouble of reading all of this, but I would encourage my colleagues, particularly those in the Liberal Party, to read the concerns that the association voices and the recommendations it makes.

This letter was written on behalf of several other organizations, which I want to take the time to mention. These are recognized organizations from all over Quebec and Canada. These individuals work directly with women who may be affected. They are on the ground and know the situation well, so I feel these are the individuals we need to listen to. They are YWCA Toronto, the Canadian Women's Foundation, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children, Women's Shelter Canada, Calgary Legal Guidance, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action and the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. The letter was endorsed by many other organizations, such as the National Council of Women of Canada.

In addition, PolyRemembers made it clear to us how harmful this measure might be to women.

I want to clearly state that this is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against all clauses of this bill that deal with the “red flag” measure. Since clause 4 is the first that deals with it, I wanted to say it now.

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

Yes, on what this does, really, we're asking that, after line 8 on page 3 of Bill C-21, the following be inserted:

(2.1) If the provincial court judge determines that the hearing of an application shall be held in private in accordance with subsection (2), the judge shall consider any background information submitted by a peace officer following any investigation relating to the person against whom the order is sought before deciding if an order should be made.

The idea here is that we want to ensure that a judge has all the relevant information, as much relevant information as possible, to support the claim of an ex parte.... Of course, as we know, law enforcement has more investigative ability and access to resources than the courts do. That's the reasoning behind this particular amendment.

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

There are certain permissions granted with respect to amendment CPC‑3. As I mentioned, I will be voting against this one. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will join the other parties to ask that the committee's work be directed in the next few days so as not to slow down the study of Bill C‑21.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's very clear that when you speak to a clause that's different from the clause before the committee, it's a filibuster. When you're asking questions that you've already had the answer to, it's a filibuster. When you're asking questions that are repetitive in nature, it's a filibuster.

Yes, the Conservatives have been filibustering this for a number of weeks. I have continually raised the possibility that we extend hours to get through this. Conservatives have refused each time.

Yes, it is absolutely a filibuster. You may not like the fact that I'm calling the Conservatives out on it. They may not like that, but it is true that they've been filibustering. They're filibustering legislation that is important, not just on ghost guns but things that need to be moved forward. Law enforcement has said that it is vital that we take action.

I would agree with Mr. Motz on the issue of the Liberals making a huge error back at the end of the year that delayed the committee for a number of months, but the Conservatives' actions now bring to mind the old adage “two wrongs don't make a right”. That's what we're seeing. The Conservatives are compounding the error that the Liberals made. I just find it inappropriate.

We are on CPC-3. Conservatives have not spoken to it at all. They seem to be speaking about everything but CPC-3.

I would say, through you, Mr. Chair, that there's an issue of relevance to add to the filibuster. We need to move forward. The House can make a decision to direct this committee, and I certainly hope it does.

Yes, the House of Commons is responsible for overseeing a committee that no longer functions. Constant filibustering by the Conservatives has made it impossible to move forward with our study of Bill C‑21—

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll bring this up now because the member opposite just mentioned how medical professionals are in favour of that. I'd like to read a few quotes to differentiate the opinion on that, if I may.

I will note that the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians were initially supportive of Bill C-21's red flag laws, but as of October 21 have reversed their position completely. They do not support the current provisions and prefer a reporting mechanism for physicians.

Mr. Alan Drummond of the CAEP tweeted, “the problem, as I see it, with Canada's proposed Red Flag Law is that it is heavy on the judiciary and court process and equally burdensome on the vulnerable for whom the process may seem intimidating and an exercise in futility.”

He also went on to say, “The government cannot expect the victims of Intimate Partner Violence, in a climate of fear, to initiate the onerous task of court proceedings and places yet another and unwelcome barrier to those seeking safety for themselves and their families” and “We are supportive of the concept of Red Flag Laws but not THIS Red Flag law.”

Dr. Atul Kapur of the CAEP stated:

...we have concerns that, in its present form, the language in the bill will have very limited effectiveness.

...We continue to maintain that this is far from the timely responsiveness that is required. We, as emergency physicians, must be able to report the incident or a patient at higher risk to the police directly in order to protect the individual and their friends and families. When minutes and hours count, taking days or weeks to act is indefensible.

This applies to patients who are at a high risk of suicidality, but do not reach the level of needing to be admitted to hospital. It also applies to patients with a history of dementia and impulsive behaviour, and particularly to patients whom we identify to be at risk of domestic or interpersonal violence.

Dr. Atul Kapur also stated:

Placing the onus on victims of interpersonal violence or on a family member of a depressed person or demented parent is largely unworkable and an unwelcome hindrance to getting the guns temporarily out of the homes of those in crisis.

Also, the Canadian Bar Association stated:

Some have argued that the proposed provisions are a useful suicide prevention tool. We find that the deployment of tactical teams and subjecting mentally ill people to high stress situations with possible criminal consequences is not a suitable means of handling this issue. In fact, it poses the very real risk that mentally ill individuals will not seek help and instead conceal issues fearing that their doctor, psychiatrist, or any other person might seek these heavy sanctions against them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I will introduce this on behalf of Ms. Dancho. She is currently in the House.

This amendment would replace lines 31 to 36 on page 2 with the following:

110.1(1) A member of the immediate family of a person or a person who resides with that person, or an organization authorized to submit an application on their behalf, a peace officer or a medical professional may make an ex parte application to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting the person against whom the order is sought from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, if they believe on

What this amendment does is make immediate family members or cohabitating persons eligible to file an ex parte on the request, and it lowers the chance of malicious false claims. We're trying to soften the current language that exists.

There are a couple of things that I want to remind the committee of from what we heard. Almost unanimously from stakeholders, we have heard that Bill C-21's proposed red flag measures are costly, ineffective and redundant. I want to get into some of the information that we actually heard during the study. The National Association of Women and the Law indicated, “Citizens or other organizations, much less potential victims, should not be expected to put themselves at risk by going to court to request action that should be immediate and within the direct responsibility of police.” They went on to say, “Shifting the onus of enforcement to women and third parties, as Bill C-21's 'Red Flag' [laws] attempt to do, is a guaranteed route to increased fatality.”

Actually, Ms. Rathjen from PolySeSouvient said not one women's group asked for this measure. She went on to say that “it's not relevant in the Canadian context, because...victims of abuse can call the police. It's up to the police to...investigate, and they have all the legislative tools necessary to remove the weapons.”

She went on to say that the measure is dangerous and that it could allow police officers to “offload” responsibility onto victims, and that “the existence of such measures will undermine reforms that need to take place [when] police don't take complaints seriously”.

The current system is the best system.

Another lady by the name of Louise Riendeau from Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale said that not only do they find this measure “unnecessary” but that it “may even be counterproductive for victims.” They recommended that clauses 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which introduce the red flag measures, be removed from the bill, and said that victims have neither the energy nor the moral strength to go to court to have weapons withdrawn in addition to taking all the steps to protect themselves or flee domestic violence.

Wendy Cukier from the Coalition for Gun Control said, “I would argue that it's the police responsibility to keep guns away.... It's not private citizens' responsibility. In my view, private citizens should be able to notify the police someone is at risk and expect the police to take action.”

Angela MacDougall from Battered Women's Support Services indicated:

Though the intention of the red flag is good, it creates potential conditions that put an unreasonable burden on a victim or survivor to address their safety. We've discussed this a bit so far. When that happens and we create that kind of opening, where the survivor is somehow responsible for their safety, the system orients itself in that way and begins to question whether the victim has done everything she should have done, based on the interpretation.

There's a lot of work to be done already, just in terms of the amount of victim blaming that exists. The red flag, although I think the intentions are solid, creates another potential loophole and a chasm in which survivors can find themselves without an advocate and without understanding how to navigate the system. They are then blamed if they are not following through in the ways in which the system thinks they should with respect to this measure....

We heard from police agencies who deal with this. Chief McFee from the Edmonton Police Service said:

The “red flag” law is well-intended. However, many of the proposed powers already exist under section 117 of the Criminal Code. As it stands, a law would pose a significant draw on police resources should numerous applications be granted at a time when many Canadian police services are stretched thin. This could further increase service demands.

Brian Sauvé from the National Police Federation indicated:

We are seeing in a number of provinces that there are not enough Crown prosecutors, there are not enough judges and there's not enough trial space. Even if we end up in a court proceeding for a red flag or yellow flag, however that might look, is it going to be addressed in a timely manner? If it's not addressed in a timely manner, is that person continually put at risk? The downstream impacts of this are something we need to consider.

André Gélinas from the police in Montreal said:

...when a person is in danger, the first people to call are always the police. It would take an inordinate amount of time to go before the courts to try and get a firearm licence suspended, as is proposed in these amendments, and the courts are already overwhelmed.

The problem...is that people can go before the courts to explain their point of view in good faith, but the judge won't get the police officers' perspective. Police officers have information that the judge cannot access at that time. For example, the judge does not have access to data banks or to police expertise. He or she will simply have to base their decision on the person before them who has expressed their concerns.

I was really intrigued with some of the comments from our indigenous groups throughout the committee. Terry Teegee from the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations said:

...we are very concerned about the lack of clarity with respect to red [and] yellow flag laws that are applicable to first nations people specifically on reserve and in first nations communities.

Handguns and assault-style weapons are not used for hunting. However, the provisions of Bill C-21 will establish red [and] yellow flag laws and provide no guidelines for how those new laws would apply to first nations.

This is significant, as it may [impact] the possession of firearms such as long guns or rifles, which are commonly and responsibly used by first nations...for hunting purposes.

Chief Heather Bear from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations indicated that—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will pick this back up in an hour.