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.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not finished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will start again. The Minister of Finance asks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, I move:

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

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

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

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

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

Firearms

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present.

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

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

I support that wholeheartedly.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Minister.

You talked about regulations and you hope that we'll continue to work together, and I'm pleased to hear that. However, you don't need the opposition parties to put regulations in place. You've promised some for high-capacity long-gun magazines. I imagine that will happen soon.

Also, you want to reinstate the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, or your predecessor wanted to do so. Bill C‑21 is fine, of course, but it's not great. It refers to future weapons, i.e., weapons that don't yet exist. Yet many weapons on the market are not yet banned by Bill C-21. Your predecessor, Mr. Mendicino, said he was going to re-establish this committee to make recommendations, so that measures could be implemented. When we spoke about this, you had just taken office. Now you've been there for quite some time.

How is the re-establishment of this committee coming along?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, I thank Ms. Michaud for her question. It will come as no surprise if I say that I share her concern about the Conservative Party's policies on gun control.

I very much appreciated the work we did in collaboration with Ms. Michaud and her Bloc Québécois colleagues, as well as our NDP colleagues, to strengthen these measures in Bill C‑21, and I hope we can continue to work together on regulations. I look forward to doing this work with Ms. Michaud and with other colleagues who share our concerns.

Ms. Michaud is absolutely right. I don't think we can wait for next year as far as the buyback program is concerned. I hope to have details very soon about a first phase in which, for example, we would buy back the prohibited weapons that are in Cabela's stores as well as in other stores that were legally selling these weapons. They need to be recovered and destroyed.

The RCMP has already taken steps to be ready to do that, and I'm quite sure we won't need to extend the amnesty. I understand that there would be a difficulty in doing this again, and I think I'm very close to finalizing the second phase, which will be to buy back from Canadians these weapons that are now illegal, while recognizing the need to do it in an orderly fashion.

I understand and share your concern. I am confident that we will be able to meet these deadlines, and I will be happy to keep the committee and our colleagues informed of the progress we make. I think we're just about ready to get started.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here. We're extremely grateful.

Minister, I want to come back to your record, your government's record on gun control. It's true that work has been done through Bill C‑21, but there's still a lot left to do. Your government announced a program to buy back prohibited weapons. That was a few years ago. An amnesty was announced in 2021. It was then extended until 2023, and now it's been extended again until October 30, 2025.

If I'm not mistaken, October 30, 2025, will be after the next election. I'm not a pollster, but all the indications right now are that if there were an election, a Conservative government would take power. We all know where the Conservatives stand on gun control. So there would be no control. Doesn't it scare you to push back this buyback program even further, to 2025?

In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer had budgeted this in 2021 at some $750 million. The supplementary estimates (C) refer to a first phase of $12.5 million. We're quite far off the mark.

What are you going to do about this, Minister?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you.

Just for the record, obviously we've been pretty candid about where we sit with Bill C-21 in terms of it going towards law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. I think we just want that on the record.

I also want to say to my colleagues that there was an abrupt move to adjourn the last meeting. The reason is that it's really important that I hear from the senator when we're dealing with this and hear that he is okay with this. This is his bill, so it's to make sure that I am listening and that I have all of the right information.

It's not a partisan hack or something like that. I just want it on the record that Senator Boisvenu put this bill forward with so much heart, and he is retiring. His daughter was murdered, as we said into the record many times. I'll talk with my colleague from the NDP about this. We know that we want to get this to the House and we want to get it there correctly, but I just want to say for the record that this was the issue. It is just trying to coordinate, and that's why we had to suspend. It was to make sure that he is okay with this. That's really what we're here to do—to be his vessel to make sure that his daughter's honour is in the right tack.

I just want that on the record.

Thank you.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I am happy to move this amendment. This is an amendment to coordinate with Bill C-21, which is also in the process of being passed through Parliament. This is a technical coordinating amendment to ensure that this bill will align with other bills in Parliament that we're studying.

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

I'm just not content with that.

I would like the record to show the objections that we had to the other clauses, because I think that should be on the record. There are a number of clauses that impact Bill C-21 and also Bill C-233. There are a number of clauses that impact other bills.

[Chelsea Moore]

This amendment, G-14, would make some changes to ensure that some of the changes in previous clauses line up with Bill C-21, and the previous clauses include clause 2. There's a condition that would be proposed under the new peace bond provision. Currently, it's proposed subsection 810.03(9) on page 4 of the bill. That's a list of conditions the defendants would have to comply with, or potentially comply with, if they're on a peace bond.

In that list, the words “firearm part” are missing. “Firearm part” would be added by Bill C-21.

I don't exactly know all the rules, but I don't believe it can be debated, since it deals with that clause. We haven't changed the numbering in that clause yet. This provision proposes new numbering to reflect a motion that would have passed.

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

I actually see this very differently. When you look at G-3, clause 2, under.... I don't even know how to read this.

In proposed subsection 810.03(8) on page 2 of the committee stage document, you will see that there's a reference that.... Proposed subsection 810.03(8) completely changes subsection 810.03(7), which references the firearms section. That actually doesn't make any sense. It changes it to subsection 810.03(9), which is not the firearms section.

When you go farther down to proposed subsection 810.03(11), you'll see that it does it again when it speaks about “the defendant makes an application under subsection (10)”. It's changing.... It's amending the firearms section.

This G-14 deals specifically with the firearms section. Technically, the firearms section in these two provisions should be dealt with before you contemplate anything dealing with G-14, because G-14 contemplates that Bill C-21 must be introduced prior.

It may be moot if you deal with the firearms section. You can't deal with this without dealing with those two amendments first.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

This is a technical coordinating amendment to ensure that Bill S-205 is in line with another bill that Parliament is studying, Bill C-21, should both bills be passed.

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Institutions

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us try to examine it intelligently in committee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I've said several times since this debate began, I think it's extremely unfortunate that we're spending several hours debating numerous motions that all point in the same direction, when the committee has an agenda to follow: we should be debating Bill C‑20; some people have reminded us of how important it is to them. Indeed, we've all received emails from victims who have been harmed by the Canada Border Services Agency, and they deserve to have parliamentarians take a look at this important bill. Personally, I think it's a shame for these people. I'd even say it's disrespectful to the people who are watching the committee's work, hoping that we'll finally get around to studying this bill. It's also disrespectful to the civil servants who, let's put it this way, are wasting time here while we debate another subject.

I'm not saying this subject isn't important. Of course it's important. There are probably 50 other important topics related to public safety in Canada that we could be debating here. It's just that the timing isn't right. I think we've already wasted too much time and we should be debating Bill C‑20.

That said, I think my colleague Ms. O'Connell has proposed a reasonable compromise in introducing the motion before us. It's the Conservatives' desire to debate this subject, once the study of Bill C‑20 has been completed, and I agree. I would even have gone so far as to say that, since bills are this committee's priority, the debate on this subject could have been held after the study of Bill C-26. However, we agreed to consider this issue directly after the study of Bill C‑20. Ms. O'Connell has proposed a reasonable motion, which I think we could all agree on.

Of course, I'm against the amendments and subamendments proposed by the Conservative Party. We've had ample opportunity to discuss and negotiate behind the scenes so we can't do it here in committee and waste a lot of people's time. The Conservatives always come up with a new proposal to stretch out debate time. They want to politicize the debate and that's really deplorable. It's no secret that they're politicizing the debate. As I've already said, I'd like to take the question even further: should we politicize this process too? The Correctional Service of Canada exists for a reason, it has specific tasks to accomplish, so I don't understand why we're bringing the minister into this.

I agree with a few things Mr. Julian mentioned about public servants, whom we once again allowed to leave after several hours of hearing us debate this.

Out of respect for the people who expect us to do our job, I'd like us to go ahead, vote on the subamendments, on the amendments and on the motion, come to a consensus and proceed with Bill C‑20. There are people who have been waiting for this for a long time.

I said that some of the blame lies with the Conservatives, who are filibustering in Parliament and stretching out debate time on this issue, but it must also be said that the committee spent a lot of time studying Bill C-21 because the government had more or less done its job well. In the case of Bill C‑20, this is the third time in a few years that a similar bill has come before the House of Commons. In the meantime, there has been prorogation and an election; obviously, this is coming from the Liberal side.

So I see political jousting on both sides and I find it deplorable. It's a subject that shouldn't be politicized.

I ask that we vote on the proposal before the committee at this time.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online News Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will tell us a little bit about that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety

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

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

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

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

Justice and Human Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the context of being up front with Canadians and establishing the credibility of what's being said here so that we can formulate a report and have proper recommendations going forward, Minister, in January 2022, you talked about getting advice from law enforcement asking for the triggering of the Emergencies Act, which we found out not to be true.

In October 2022, you had an issue where you misled a federal judge by backdating documents.

In January 2023, you had an issue about the Safe Third Country Agreement working effectively and miscommunicated that to Canadians.

In April of this year, you had to scrap your amendments to Bill C-21 after saying that you weren't targeting law-abiding hunters.

In May of this year, you indicated that CSIS never shared intelligence that the Communist regime had targeted Mr. Chong and his family, which we now know is not true.

In May of this year, you talked about police stations still being open, which we know now categorically wasn't true.

Now we know that not only did the Correctional Service of Canada tell your department and your ministry in May of this year, but you were also cc'd on that same memo from your own boss, who forwarded it on to your department or your ministry.

Last night, reading through Twitter, your boss, through the Prime Minister's Office, has said that they sent you that same note and there was no indication, according to the reporter, that you responded to the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister's Office found out on the 29th, the day before you said you found out on the 30th, that Paul Bernardo was being transferred from a maximum security prison to a medium security prison.

It is—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Safety

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

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

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

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

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

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

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

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

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

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

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

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

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

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

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

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

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

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

Sitting Resumed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All I'm saying is that the effect would be the same whether one wishes to call it a leak, which I won't in this case. I'll indulge you on that one point, but when we have any organization looking at this and asking if we have fairness in our tax system, I think they can say yes.

They might have issues with the Canada Revenue Agency. That's fine. That's democracy. Many Canadians have the ability to raise concerns about the CRA. There is an appeals process and so on and so forth, but it starts from the very basic understanding that the tax agency is fair and is not going to, for example, divulge information on a whim or on a request by a parliamentary committee for political purposes.

Where is it going? It's ultimately going towards creating an environment of mistrust that organizations, whether they are charities or businesses.... The Conservatives used to style themselves as the party of businesses, of the free market, of entrepreneurship. Business needs, almost by definition, a level playing field. That includes a tax agency that is fair. If a tax agency is asked, in this case by a parliamentary committee, to reveal the information of a particular organization.... We're talking about charities here. It could just as well be a business. There is nothing preventing a future committee from looking at Mr. McCauley's motion and saying, “Let's gather the information that the CRA has about this business”. Then the level playing field I talk about is not in place.

That is a huge problem. This is an advanced democracy. This is a G7 country. Yes, we have many challenges, but we're still one of the most advanced democracies in the world, where people come to learn the practice of democracy. Now we're going to ask our tax agency to reveal the confidential information it has about a charity organization. There are huge problems that come from that.

Ultimately, the T3010 form that is mentioned and that Mr. McCauley is seized with—let's just be sure of our terms here—is an income tax return for charities. That is what that form is, so the information in that is quite sensitive. I wouldn't ask you, Mr. Chair, or any colleague here to see your income tax return. That's a private matter. Could you imagine if we started asking the Canada Revenue Agency for individuals' tax returns? It's not that different in terms of what's being asked for here.

This is an enormous breach of parliamentary obligation that can't be allowed to stand for the reasons I've mentioned, which are new reasons that build upon what Mrs. Shanahan has already offered. Committees set precedents. That is the case. We have to be very careful about the precedent that is set here.

What will the business community think when it becomes clear, as it is already becoming clear, that it's the Conservatives who are trying to obtain particular documents that are protected under privacy provisions? What will they think, if this were to go through, about what this Parliament is all about? They have privacy rights, as all Canadians have the right to privacy. It's a very curious and strange motion and amendment that the Conservatives have put forward for that reason. Again, it's about fairness, a level playing field. This is what's required in the charitable sector, in business and in all realms of Canadian society and democratic life.

I see that my colleague has something that she wants to share, and I'll give up the floor in a moment. I'm interested to hear what Mr. McCauley says, particularly on this point about protections. I'm stunned that someone who has been a parliamentarian for so long has neglected to put that forward.

To go back to my other point about precedent setting, I mentioned an organization that represents the gun lobby. It's probably the lead organization in the country when it comes to lobbying on guns. If the Conservatives want to go down this path, it opens up the floor entirely. I'd love to hear what Mr. Desjarlais would have to say on this.

They want to know about the ins and outs of a particular charity organization or not-for-profit organization. They've used the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation in this case. They must understand that this does open the path for any member of this committee to put forward a motion to obtain information from any organization, whether it's relating to the gun lobby or other organizations that seem to be close to the Conservative Party and actually are close to the Conservative Party.

I'm not sure that they've thought this through. There is a domino effect to what they are trying to pursue with respect to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation. I'm not saying that this is the direction the committee should go, Mr. Chair. Again, I put forward an idea. I don't know if colleagues across the way have considered it. I know the Conservatives won't, as I've said.

Colleagues in the Bloc and colleagues in the NDP, I am ready to put forward a motion that would have us get back to what this committee is all about, which is to delve in and understand things like climate change. We could look at other things like poverty, for example, and what the Auditor General says about where things are at as far as poverty is concerned in Canada.

I do note, Mr. Chair—and it is relevant to the conversation because I am going to mention the Auditor General—I would love to know what the Auditor General would have to say on the plight and position of children living in poverty in the modern day. I know that we have seen some substantial declines in child poverty. The Auditor General could look at the overall landscape, not just in terms of federal policy but provincial and municipal policy, as those policies relate to what we do on the federal side. That would be a much more serious and substantive approach to take with respect to what this committee is all about.

Instead, we're putting forward a motion that, if taken to—I used the phrase before—its logical conclusion, would have us examine the ins and outs of the gun lobby. The Conservatives are opening a huge can of worms here for themselves. It's stunning. Let's look at their income tax return. Let's look at that T3010 form, for example. Is that something that the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights is interested in divulging? I would think not, Mr. Chair.

Let's better understand their political activities. If they want to politicize this committee, then naturally, by definition, they want to politicize the analysis of charity organizations. They are trying to do so with the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.

Again, take that to its logical conclusion. What are the political activities of that particular organization—the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights—or other gun lobby organizations vis-à-vis the Conservative Party? Have they been involved in helping to craft the overall public safety policy of the Conservatives with respect to guns? We don't know that. Is there anything in CRA documents that would show particular relationships of that kind? Perhaps there are. Is there anything in terms of foreign funding to be concerned about, with the National Rifle Association, for example? Are they involved in helping to fund particular gun lobby organizations?

I won't only focus on one. There are a few that we could put forward in terms of a motion. I think we would have opposition support for that because, while there are differences between the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals—many differences—there is much more in common among the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals on things like gun policy and responsible gun ownership. We saw this recently with Bill C-21 and there are other examples. The Conservatives are going down a path where this can of worms is a very real one for them.

National Day Against Gun Violence

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I now call this meeting back to order.

Before we carry on with our officials, I want to point out that we need a bit of an adjustment to our budget on Bill C-21.

I believe that all members have received a copy of the supplementary budget. I'm wondering if it is the will of the committee to pass the supplementary budget at this time. Do we have agreement on that?

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-21.

The question is on the amendment.

The House resumed from May 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Sitting Resumed

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to close out debate this evening on Bill C-21, and it is an honour, as always, to stand in this House and represent the constituents from the great riding of Fundy Royal who elected me. Many of those constituents enjoy hunting, farming and sport shooting and maybe have inherited a firearm from a relative. Hunting in my riding certainly is something many people like to partake in and enjoy.

What is the problem we are trying to go after? It is gun violence. What the facts tell us is that 80% of the firearms used in violent crime are illegal. What are some of the figures? Violent crime is up 32% in Canada in the last eight years. Gang-related violent crime, the stuff Canadians are talking about, seeing in the news and hearing about in their local newspaper, is up almost 100% in the last eight years. What about crimes that are committed with firearms? Eighty per cent of the firearms used in violent crime are obtained illegally. We have an illegal firearms problem in Canada.

What is the solution when we have an illegal firearms problem? We should go after the illegal firearms. The last thing we should do is spend valuable resources going after law-abiding, licensed firearms owners in this country. However, we should not be surprised that this is the approach the government took. We have to remember this is the same Liberal government that brought in Bill C-68, or the long gun registry, and that spent, according to the Auditor General, over $1 billion registering the firearms of law-abiding Canadians while having no impact on crime.

It is the same government that brought in Bill C-5. What did Bill C-5 do? I mentioned that we have a problem with illegal firearms. Bill C-5, which was introduced and passed under the current government, repealed mandatory prison penalties for many firearms offences. They include robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking. These are the types of offences that Canadians would expect someone convicted to go to jail for. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 removed mandatary jail sentences for those crimes, so we are not going after the illegal guns and we are not going after the criminals.

The figures should get the attention of all members, no matter what side of the aisle they are on. In Toronto alone, one half of murder suspects this year are out on some type of release. In 17 of 44 homicides in Toronto last year, the individual was out on bail. We have a major problem in this country when it comes to gang-related violence and firearms violence with the revolving door, the catch-and-release, of our bail system.

The government had an opportunity with this bill to tackle some of those things. Instead, what it did is went after everyday, law-abiding Canadians, the type of Canadians I represent in my riding of Fundy Royal.

As parliamentarians, we need to take the issues that confront us in this country seriously. This bill does not do that. The government showed its hand when it brought it an amendment that would have banned all kinds of hunting rifles, rifles that have been in families for generations. These are not the problem. Law-abiding Canadians are not the problem. Licensed firearms owners are not the problem. Spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to buy back and confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens is not the solution.

When this bill is fully implemented, Canadians will not be one bit safer. Until we have the courage to tackle the revolving door of catch-and-release bail and until we have the courage to say that those who do serious crimes are going to get a jail sentence, we will continue to have these problems in Canada. We need to leave law-abiding people alone and go after the bad guys, and that is what the Conservatives will do.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are going off on a completely ridiculous tangent right now.

My hon. colleague talked about the firearms advisory committee. I would ask him to find where, in Bill C-21, that is mentioned. I will give him a hint. It is not there. He should take a look at the public safety website because he would see that the firearms advisory committee is a body that already exists.

At the risk of repeating myself for the nth time today and yesterday, I would challenge my hon. colleague to name one rifle or one shotgun that is in this bill that would be prohibited. I ask the member to give me one model, unlike all of his colleagues before him.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a second to thank the interpreters. I know that my speeches can be challenging for them sometimes and I want to take the time to thank them.

I thank my colleague for his speech. We sense that he did his work and reflected on Bill C‑21 very constructively. I would be curious to hear his thoughts on the bill's process.

Are there aspects that he was reticent about at some point? Are there amendments he would have wanted to move? Are there amendments that were moved that he applauds? Following the adoption at third reading, does he have confidence that the Senate will be able to respond quickly to pass Bill C‑21?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives have been receiving a very large number of concerns from constituents, not just in our constituencies but from across the country. We have been responding to their concerns.

Can the hon. member opposite ever deny that there is a vast number of Canadians who are concerned, are worried and do not trust what the government is doing with Bill C-21?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to be here tonight to debate Bill C‑21 and the proposals to protect public safety and the rights and privileges of hunters and gun owners.

I would like to begin by mentioning that, as a member of Parliament, I represent a rural riding in Nova Scotia, Kings—Hants. There are many hunters and many people who own handguns and firearms in my riding.

It is part of our way of life. Every one of us who comes to the House does so bringing the voice and lived experiences of their constituents and, I would say, the experience of those in the communities they have the privilege of representing.

I want to start by saying that I do represent a rural riding. I have 20 minutes tonight, which is good. It is a privilege to be able to speak to this legislation for that length of time. I want to start with just a bit of a story.

My father taught me how to shoot a rifle and a shotgun. I would say it is almost a rite of passage in rural areas, although maybe a little less so now than it used to be. Guns are part of the culture in Canada, certainly the culture in rural communities. I do not actively shoot today. I have had lessons and the courses, but I do not actively hunt, and I do not actively shoot. However, I certainly respect those who do.

I can appreciate that, any time we have the conversation about public safety, gun control and legal gun owners, there can be a lot of tension. This is a challenging subject. It brings forward emotion. I have seen that at committee. I do not sit as a permanent member, but I did have the opportunity to sit in for a couple of hours last week. I have seen the debate here in the House, and how this is framed.

I hope to be able to give my perspective on the bill writ large, and maybe even, just broader, how we could tackle some of the challenges that we are seeing across the country. I want to start by saying that the issue of public safety is an important one in the country. We are seeing challenges with gun violence from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia and everywhere in between. I have a statistic.

Gun violence has increased 81% since 2009.

It is not unlike other challenges. We cannot point to one single factor, as to why there might be that certain outcome, but it is certainly an issue that we have to tackle with a nuanced approach, with a lot of different mechanisms moving forward.

I look forward to talking about Bill C-21 and also some of the work that the government is doing to try to tackle what I think is a challenging problem. We are not the United States. I do not say that loosely. We are not seeing mass shootings every single day in the news. I just got back from Washington. I have to say that, when we turn on the news and look at the United States, sadly, it is happening almost every single day.

We should not make our policies in Canada on the basis of what is happening in the United States, but we should also not be naive to the fact that, traditionally, this country has been influenced by what happens in the continent. When we talk about border policy and gun control, part of that is about trying to actually stem the tide of illegal guns that come across the border.

The minister has spoken about the work the government is doing and the investments that have been made.

These investments are aimed at stopping illegal guns from entering Canada, because they pose a problem in our communities, in our provinces and across the country.

In what we have to focus on, we have to try to strike a balance between infringing on the individual privileges that exist in this country and understanding that we cannot completely stop every single act that may happen in the country. There are people who, for a variety reasons, may want to cause harm to our neighbours, our family, our friends or our countrymen. If we could take reasonable measures to try to stop the incidents of that, I think that would be appropriate.

Everyone in the House is going to have a different perspective on what that actually is, how far the limit should be. I heard some members in the House who think that the existing laws, even before Bill C-21 was proposed, might have been too stringent and that we did not need the ones that were already there, such as the order in council in 2020.

I know there are members of the House who would stand up here today and say they are completely against it. There are other members of the House who would probably like to see Bill C-21 be an even further measure, and there are some, perhaps, who are somewhere in between, so we all bring our perspectives to this conversation.

I am of the view that we already have very good, strong gun laws. I support the measures writ large that are in Bill C-21. I have certain concerns I will address in the time I have remaining. We do have good gun laws and we do have good policy. If there are ways we can tweak it to move the yardstick as we see it here in Bill C-21, I do not see that as extremely problematic.

It is important to note that, with what is contained in Bill C-21, anyone who has been impacted by gun violence should not rest assured this bill alone would solve that. It is going to take a nuanced approach, as I said. We need to invest in the border, which the government is doing and is in the process of trying to tackle. The statistics I have before me show that CBSA has stopped more illegal guns than ever before from coming across the border, because of some of the enhanced measures that are there.

We need to invest in social programs. We are seeing some of the violence in our communities, particularly in urban centres, and some of this is driven by challenges around mental health. This is driven by addictions. It is driven by a lack of social programs for young people to have a place, mentorship and an ability to be part of something bigger. Trying to restrict guns will not solve that on its own.

The government has been very clear. Sometimes when we listen in the House, we would not know there is anything else going on because there is such a focus on this piece of legislation as opposed to on the broader work happening. I just want to highlight that this is going to be crucial in the days ahead. Those who go back to their community and talk about this legislation need to also talk about everything else that is happening in the context of solving the issue, because putting forward simplistic solutions to very nuanced problems is not going to get us very far.

Sadly, my riding, Kings—Hants, is where the worst mass murder in our country's history took place.

I remember well that day, three years ago. I woke up on a Sunday morning, and my wife brought to my attention that there was a shooter on the loose in Nova Scotia. It ended not too far down the road from me. Of all the members of Parliament in the House, and I do not wear it as a badge of honour and I do not wear it proudly, I have been able to see exactly the way in which gun violence has impacted communities in my riding in the most tragic way.

That brings me to the point of what Bill C-21 would actually do. There is a lot rhetoric. The word “misinformation” is getting used too much. There are a lot of overblown dynamics of what this bill would and would not do, so let me lay it out. This bill would establish a formal handgun freeze, in that one would not be able to import or buy a handgun unless one is an exempted individual under the legislation.

The bill would establish really important red flag laws. I want to recognize the member for Oakville North—Burlington. She has taken a considerable amount of abuse sitting on the public safety committee. She and I may not agree on exactly everything, but I am proud of the work she does. I texted her the other day when this bill made its way through committee. Notwithstanding a few of my concerns, I said that this would make a difference. I just want to go on the record and say that. Some of the red flag laws would be for intimate partner violence. There would be an ability for the RCMP to be aware of those individuals who could be red-flagged, and there could be a court process to revoke a gun licence until such time as we know it is safe for an individual to have one.

With respect to yellow-flag laws, as opposed to a court order, which is a higher threshold, the chief firearms officer already has a lot of discretion in the country. They would have the ability to revocate a licence and actually obtain the gun in a situation where it was demonstrably the case that they had to prevent an individual from harming either themselves or other people. Those are good things. In fact, Conservatives voted, I believe, for some of these measures. I have not heard all the speeches tonight. The Conservatives do not like to talk a lot about that, but there are some good measures for which there is undoubtedly a pretty good consensus in this House to move forward.

With respect to ghost guns, there was no criminal provision for someone who would take disparate parts and be able to build an actual gun that could cause harm. There would now be actual criminal provisions against ghost guns. Again, this is something that was approved across party lines, and I certainly commend that.

The legislation also walks back, as members will remember, the dreaded amendments. With respect to the amendments that the government sought to table, the intention was right. The application was wrong, in terms of what it would do. There was massive confusion. In fact, when I was back home in my riding just recently, I was still getting asked questions on what the government had tabled, back before Christmas. Thankfully, that process has been simplified. There is going to be a definition of a prohibited firearm, but it would only be on models moving forward.

Let me repeat that. I have listened, certainly tonight, to the Conservatives suggest that certain guns and hunting rifles would be banned. That is not the case. Any current model would not be touched by this prohibited firearm definition. That is extremely important, and it is not being recognized by the official opposition. I understand the members might have grievances and policy differences, but they should not frame this in a way that is not what is actually happening. That is extremely important.

The bill would also require firearms manufacturers to identify what the gun was actually designed for, moving forward. Therefore, either future models would have to conform to this definition or they would be prohibited in the country. That provides the certainty and clarity that gun manufacturers would like, and it would put an onus on them to identify that. Again, it is forward-looking. There is not one single aspect about a current long rifle in the market today. That is something that is not being stated enough here in this House.

The bill would establish a committee. I should say that this committee has already been established, as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford rightly pointed out earlier in the debate. It would now be re-established to advise on the existing models on the market with respect to any that it might deem should be prohibited. I want to make it very clear, though, that this is not just a committee that would put a list together and say what is prohibited. There would still be ministerial discretion involved. That is important. Moving forward, members of Parliament could actually engage the minister once the committee re-establishes and identify models.

That was part of the problem with the amendments in the long list; there were a few hunting rifles that were included. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety made it very clear that this was not the intent, but that was how it applied. Therefore, I am glad that the government went back and recalibrated this to get it right.

I want to say one thing with respect to the advisory committee. It is a good process. I want to make sure that my advice is on the record; this is that the committee has to comprise individuals who are independent and individuals who know the technical specifications of firearms in this country. I know that there are strong advocates for gun control in this country who have been touched by violence. In my respectful view, that is not the place where these individuals should be. It should also not be the place of special interest groups that want to drive the gun lobby. To the extent that the government is able, I would suggest that it should try to find individuals who are not actually driven by one ideological preference or another but can provide technical advice to the minister and allow the minister to have discretion. That, to me, is absolutely key. There have been challenges with the firearms advisory committee in the past, including groups resigning because of the contentiousness of putting disparate groups together. This has to be an independent process.

We all come to the table with our certain biases, but again, it is going to be extremely important for those who are named to that advisory committee to be able to provide that recommendation based on policy evidence and not on emotion on either side of this issue.

With the last five minutes, as I have here in my notes, let us cut through some of the Conservative BS. Now, I did not say the word, but I am sorry and will rephrase. Let us cut through some of the Conservative narrative. Hopefully that is okay. Hunting rifles are not being targeted. How many times have we stated that on hunting rifles?

I represent a riding where there are a lot of hunters, and I had a lot of people call me during the amendments. Again, I mentioned already in my speech the concern around the amendment process and the confusion it was causing. For example, we were telling people to look at the list to see if their gun was listed there and whether we were banning it. However, the way the actual legislation read at the time, and the amendments that were tabled, is that it would say “the following guns are banned or prohibited, except for” and then it would name about 15 pages worth of guns that were actually being exempted and not being prohibited. We would tell people, of course, to go the list, they would ctrl+f to find their gun, but they did not scroll up 15 pages to see that it was actually exempted, and there was a lot of confusion.

However, let me make it very clear that the Conservatives are not correct when they say that this bill is targeting hunting rifles in any which way. They have no right to say that. They can have frustration with handguns, thinking that maybe they should be completely open and legal, which is fine, just say that, but anything around the hunting rifles is a complete fallacy. The bill does not apply to current guns. We can get into the dynamic around the advisory committee. I just made very clear where I stand on that, and the importance of that committee having independence, but this legislation, outside of putting a freeze on handguns, does not apply to any long rifles whatsoever. That needs to be recognized by the official opposition. I hope that they are not going to drive a narrative out to their constituents that runs contrary to what this bill would actually do.

Members of the official opposition supported a number of elements in this bill. However, they seem not to recognize that the government is taking other initiatives above and beyond. I agree with them that this bill alone would not solve gun violence. We need measures at the border, we need to be able to enhance criminal penalties, as this government has done for those who are smuggling guns across the border, and we need to invest in social programs. Even that may not solve the issue completely, and so let us not have rose-coloured glasses coming into this situation. Again, Conservatives need to recognize that this government is doing more than just what is in this bill.

However, Conservatives may agree with certain elements of the bill, and they obviously voted in committee on a majority of it. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford might be able to weigh in on this as he was a member of that committee for a considerable amount of time. My understanding is that the Conservatives actually voted for quite a bit of what is in here, but we would not know that by the way they actually speak on the bill.

I have two minutes left, and let me say that the one concern, among others, such as the advisory committee and the importance of its independence, is sport shooting. I have a lot of sport shooters in my riding.

The former warden for the municipality of East Hants is a guy named Jim Smith, and we have had a number of conversations. He invited me to the IPSC national championship that took place near the Halifax Stanfield airport last year. I have seen them work and the way in which these individuals go about their craft, and how they represent their province, their country and their locality at shooting competitions. I explained at committee that I was concerned that this legislation did not have a provision for this.

The NDP did move an amendment for it, and I would have liked to have seen that adopted, but it was not. The Bloc had moved a motion about certification, saying that if there is an annual certification, high-competitive shooters would be exempted under the Shooting Federation of Canada. I think that definition, in a regulatory measure by this government, has to include an organization like IPSC, which is a federated body all around the world, and there are hundreds of countries. Countries like Australia have banned handguns, similar to what this government is doing, but it found a pathway to keep IPSC as an organization.

I will conclude by saying that we can appreciate that for individuals who go to shooting competitions internationally, if Air Canada loses their gun, there would be no recourse, which is one of the limitations of this bill. A lot of the bill I support, and I will sleep on it tonight, but this is something I wish the government had tackled.

I will continue to call for the government to address it in a regulatory measure in the days ahead because it is important to make sure, as the minister said, that we have a pathway to Olympic shooting. That should include organizations like IPSC, which are highly professional and regulated and have really important membership.

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks by thanking the pages as we take part in an evening debate. I do not know if this is a first for Parliament, but I am speaking while wearing my cleats, which I have not taken off because tonight was the long-awaited soccer game between the House of Commons representatives, the Commanders, and the team of pages. I think there were over a hundred of them on the sidelines. I was surprised at how relentless they were. While they are great at bringing things to people in the House, they are also great at taking the ball away from us. Still, we won two to one, with a goal from Benoît Dupras, whom I want to commend. He is from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. He is a parliamentary intern and scored the winning goal. I wanted to mention that.

I rise today as a member who represents a rural riding to speak to Bill C‑21 on gun control, and also to recognize the insights of the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I invite members to take the time to read the report entitled “A Path Forward: Reducing Gun and Gang Violence in Canada”.

The first step in solving a problem is to understand it. That is what I do with my own files, including the issue of athletes who are victims of abuse and mistreatment. Sport is a cause for concern at this time, and the Bloc Québécois will continue to demand that the government adopt a holistic approach by launching a public inquiry to understand the systemic problems that helped maintain the culture of silence and the toxic culture.

That is why I am not at all surprised by the results achieved by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who was able to constantly seek a consensus. I thank her, because I am convinced that she did all the necessary work to achieve the result that we have before us. I tip my hat to her because it was a successful collaboration.

Developing effective public safety legislation is not limited to theory, but also requires close attention and a deep understanding of the problems underlying gun violence. It also requires, as I was saying a few minutes ago, a comprehensive approach and a careful analysis of the contributing factors to this complex reality.

Parliamentarians have understood and recognized that developing effective legislation cannot be done in a vacuum. It is essential to listen to and understand the diverse perspectives of stakeholders, including public safety experts, rights advocacy groups, law enforcement organizations and members of civil society. This inclusive step opens the door to gathering a variety of ideas and taking into account the concerns and experiences of all the players involved. One of the contributions of the Bloc Québécois is to ensure that these people, especially our hunting federations, are heard.

Communities affected by gun violence needed to be listened to first. It is important. Parliamentarians obtained valuable information on the local realities, the specific needs and the potential solutions. This helps create a global strategy that meets the unique challenges of each region while addressing the structural problems on a national level.

The Bloc Québécois worked hard to speak on behalf of and give a voice to those who are affected by gun violence and ineffective public safety policies. We have finally taken an important step.

The airsoft associations in my riding and across Quebec and Canada will be happy to hear that the political parties unanimously decided to remove the clause banning airsoft guns. That amendment was adopted, which means that airsoft associations can continue to practise their sport without any of the previous restrictions. Airsoft associations should be pleased about that decision, which will allow them to continue their activities in accordance with the new regulations.

When the folks from the airsoft associations contacted me, I also wondered about how these provisions would affect biathletes. From what I understand, the use of guns in a sport context is generally dealt with in a distinct set of regulations or protocols, so the acquisition, possession and use of guns in a biathlon context is dealt with separately from the firearms framework.

I am here for the hunters in my region, those at the other end of Highway 117. They expressed serious concerns following the hastily made announcement regarding the amendments proposed by the government in the fall of 2022. I was able to learn what a Rover and an AR‑15 are.

Thanks to the Bloc's interventions, however, some problematic items were rectified. First, the infamous list, which was a source of confusion, has been removed. This was a list of firearms that were considered assault weapons. It created uncertainty. That is what had the worst impact on hunters. When this list was removed, a major source of their concern disappeared.

In addition, the specific reference to “hunting rifle” in the prospective definition of assault weapons was also removed. This reference could have led to confusion and unwarranted restrictions for hunters who legitimately use hunting rifles for their activities. Thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, this reference was removed, which addressed hunters' concerns. In particular, I want to acknowledge my friend Danny Lalancette, who brought this to my attention.

The Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs said it was satisfied with the changes made by the government following the Bloc's interventions. These adjustments corrected the initial gaps and ambiguities and thus ensured that hunters could continue their activities while complying with the new regulations, without unwarranted restrictions. I want to acknowledge the leadership they showed in committee.

Let us talk about the red flag and yellow flag system, which is included in the bill. Red flag measures allow any person to apply to a judge for an order to immediately remove firearms from an individual who may be a danger to themselves or others. These orders can also be used to remove firearms from an individual who may make them available to a person who poses a threat.

However, domestic violence victim advocacy groups are concerned about this measure and indicated that they would like to see it removed. These groups are concerned that it would relieve the police of their responsibility and put the burden of safety on victims. Despite the Bloc Québécois's opposition to this section, the NDP and the Liberal Party voted to retain it. I therefore call for greater vigilance at the slightest indication that this solution is losing its effectiveness.

Under the yellow flag measure, an individual's firearms licence could be temporarily suspended if information comes to light that calls into question their eligibility for that licence. This suspension would prevent the acquisition of new firearms, but would not allow the seizure of firearms already owned by the individual. However, these firearms could not be used, for example, at a shooting range during the suspension.

A new measure in this version of Bill C‑21 is the immediate revocation of the firearms licence of any individual who becomes subject to a protection order or who has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking. This measure seeks to enhance safety by quickly taking firearms licences away from such individuals in order to reduce the risk of gun violence in situations of domestic violence.

In closing, the drafting of this bill has once again proven how important it is to take a holistic approach and to have a sound understanding of the issues underlying gun violence. The legislative and regulatory review would not have had the same scope had the committee and my colleague not considered the social, economic and cultural factors that contribute to this problem.

It is clearly essential that we listen to and understand different perspectives and take into account local realities. Consultation with stakeholders, including public safety experts, advocacy groups, law enforcement agencies and members of civil society, is key to developing effective solutions separate from the passage of the bill. I am thinking about access to mental health care, crime prevention, education, support for victims and many other things.

By working together, a balanced approach can be achieved that protects communities while respecting the rights of individuals and supporting legitimate sporting activities. Developing firearms laws and regulations needs be an ongoing process. It must be adaptive and inclusive in order to meet the changing needs of society and keep everyone safe.

In closing, I want to say that my thoughts go out to all the victims of gun violence. I am thinking in particular of the victims of Polytechnique and the PolyRemembers group, as well as the victims of the Quebec City mosque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these types of firearms, while allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practise their sport.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to what is already included in Bill C‑21, I would ask this committee to consider regulating the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts used to manufacture ghost guns, such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. These parts are currently lawful to purchase and possess without a licence, and they can be purchased online or imported from the United States. The emergence of privately made firearms has reduced the significance of the currently regulated receiver and increased the importance of currently unregulated gun parts that are needed to finish a 3-D-printed receiver and turn it into a functioning firearm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have often mentioned how the study of this bill unfolded. On the government side, it was all a bit sloppy. For starters, the bill was definitely incomplete when it was introduced. Amendments were made without notice. These amendments were withdrawn while others were reintroduced later. Finally, time allocation was imposed, with two days of intensive study in committee. The bill then returned to the House for consideration at report stage, and here we are now, at third reading.

This has been quite an adventure. I think people are not necessarily aware of all the work that goes into studying a bill. Whether on the government benches or in opposition, everyone has a job to do. Taking a position on a subject as sensitive as firearms gets people worked up, but regardless of the subject, we do not go about this any which way. Obviously, we work it out.

The Bloc Québécois tries to take positions that are as reasonable as possible. We also do our best to know what we are talking about. However, that is one criticism that I have received a lot. I was told that I sounded like I did not know what I was talking about, that I was just a girl who does not know much about guns because I do not own one. That kind of comment came up a lot. People are watching us. They watch when I speak in the House and in committee, when I do an interview on the radio, in the press or on TV, when I post a message on social media. Those comments come up a lot and it is distressing because, at the end of the day, we are trying to do our job and make things better.

This was my first experience studying a bill, and it was great. We get to see what a difference we can really make. My party whip recently reminded me that what I was doing was pretty amazing. She said that when I am old and in my rocking chair, I will be able to tell my grandchildren that I worked on legislation to improve gun control in Canada. The work we did was pretty amazing.

We are not saying everything is perfect, but we have made some gains. I started to list them yesterday in my speech. I talked about the fact that the words “hunting rifle” were removed from the definition of prohibited weapons. I also talked about the list of weapons that the government was trying to add to the Criminal Code, but was removed as a result of conversations we had with the government. These gains are easily attributable to the Bloc Québécois's work.

Sometimes it is easy to give ourselves credit when the government implements a policy or a bill is passed, because we know exactly what we worked on. Other times, we wonder whether our party really did its part. In this case, I am absolutely certain that we did. We worked hard to achieve those gains that I believe improved the bill. When this bill is passed, we will know that we at least tried to improve it.

Yesterday, I ended my speech by talking about airsoft guns, the controversial toy guns that are used for paintball and other recreational activities. In the beginning, in the initial bill, the government wanted to ban them the same as other guns. The Fédération sportive d'airsoft du Québec and other federations from across the country came and testified before the committee. They said that they understood why the government wanted to ban airsoft guns. Many police organizations talked about the confusion that these guns can cause during a hold up, for example. A person may use this kind of fake weapon and put themselves and others in danger because the police think that it is a real gun.

We heard these comments, and so did the people from the federations. They said that they did not want to see people who practise this hobby, this sport, be penalized and that there must be a way to do things differently. They said they had no problem with increased regulations for their sport. They said that regulations around transportation, storage, use and an age requirement, for example, being 18, could be added for someone to acquire an airsoft gun. We really saw that these federations were open to working with us. They did not want them to be banned, but they were prepared to accept increased regulation. Even the government agreed that they were taking a very reasonable approach. That is why we worked to ensure they were not banned, but regulated, as the federations suggested.

We worked hard on this. Usually, something has to be specifically mentioned in a bill for the government to then be able to regulate it. It was therefore difficult to only delete the clause because we would no longer be making reference to airsoft. How, then, would we regulate it?

We agonized over this for days only to realize that it was possible. The officials told us that anything is possible. We realized that the government could regulate airsoft guns without us necessarily making reference to them in Bill C‑21. We simply decided to delete the clause of the bill, then the government abstained, which left room for the opposition parties to vote in favour of this. The federations were very pleased with this work. Yes, it is an NDP amendment that was accepted. However, the Bloc Québécois amendment was the same and it would have come next. It could have been the Bloc Québécois amendment. All that to say that we worked hard on this.

Since that clause was adopted I have received email. I wanted to share them with the House today because they offer a nice little pat on the back. I received one from Guillaume Mailloux, who is the owner of SMPR Tactique et Plein-Air, a shop in Quebec City. Here is what Mr. Mailloux said:

Hello

I'm taking the time to write a few lines this morning because I want to thank you. This morning, for the first time in ages, I am sipping my coffee without stressing about my business, my employees and my family. Your collaboration with the airsoft community has been invaluable. You've quite likely saved me from stress-induced prostate cancer. All kidding aside, I've been fortunate enough to work with the FSAQ, and I know that your listening and understanding have been extremely important. It's not easy to navigate the turbulent waters between the waves of hunters, anti-gun lobbyists, sport shooters and people from various industries as you do.

Thanks to you and your team, last night I was interviewed about this on the radio, and I asked the host (who plays airsoft) to mention your excellent work on air to make sure that the NDP doesn't get all the accolades.

Thank you so much!

I was very happy to get that email. I received a second one, from François Gauthier, the vice-president of the Fédération sportive d’airsoft du Québec. He said the following:

On behalf of the Fédération Sportive d'airsoft du Québec and the Quebec airsoft community, we would like to thank the Bloc Québécois, especially [the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia] and her team for listening to the issues and problems that Bill C-21 could have caused as it was introduced by the federal government.

We would also like to thank the assistant to [the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia], Ariane Francoeur, for her professionalism and for following up with us on the progress of the work, as well as for taking the time to explain to us the details of the bill's progress in the SECU committee.

We remain open to continue working with the Bloc Québécois in the future if any regulations are being created that would affect our sport.

Personally, and on behalf of the entire Quebec airsoft community, thank you for listening to our concerns.

Cordially.

It was also very nice to get that email. Yesterday, I highlighted the incredible work of my assistant, Ariane Francoeur. I am pleased to be able to recognize her again today, through Mr. Gauthier.

It may not seem like much, but I think that every member of the Bloc Québécois caucus told me that they were getting positive comments about how airsoft guns were taken out of the bill. We will take it while we can. We are very pleased about that. I think it is unfortunate that Bill C‑21 got such bad press as a result of the government's controversial amendments because there are some good things about this bill. There was talk about domestic violence and ways of better protecting women who are victims of it. Despite the rhetoric that we have been hearing since yesterday from members of the Conservative Party, who are saying that there is nothing good about this bill, I would remind them that they voted in favour of most of the amendments that were proposed.

The Bloc Québécois tabled a total of 17 amendments, and 16 were adopted. Most of them, such as the ones concerning magazines, were adopted unanimously. I talk about this a lot, and it is difficult to explain in just a few minutes during questions and comments. I will therefore take the time to explain it. Right now, we can go to a store and buy a magazine for a legal firearm without presenting a licence. That is what the Danforth killer did a few years ago. He stole a firearm. He did not have a licence and the firearm was not registered in his name. However, he went to a store and lawfully purchased a magazine. He put the magazine in the firearm and went on to kill two people and injure 13 others in Toronto.

We wondered why there was no requirement for a valid possession and acquisition licence for buying a magazine and ammunition. That is what is happening now with ammunition and firearms. It was Danforth Families for Safe Communities who brought this problem to our attention, saying that this should have been in place long ago and that it will prevent this type of situation from happening again.

I had the opportunity, or took the initiative, to move these amendments. We were talking about roughly six amendments. The first is very important, but the ones that followed are consequential amendments because if something is changed in the legislation, then it needs to be changed several times where it is mentioned.

I moved this amendment and I saw the wonderful unanimity in committee. Even the Conservative Party voted in favour of this. It is very gratifying to see that people want to improve things, that they want to move things forward. I thank the Conservative Party for voting in favour of these amendments, except for one. As I was saying, these are consequential amendments. It would be unreasonable not to adopt them all.

The Conservatives' strategy, since there was a gag order, was to take turns. Every 15 minutes or so, new members would arrive at committee to fill the five minutes allotted to them. Members would repeatedly ask the same questions that had already been asked by a colleague. These were questions for public servants. Someone who had just arrived, a Conservative colleague, said that this amendment on magazines did not make sense, even though the Conservative Party had previously agreed to all the amendments on magazines. He said that it was unreasonable to put hunters in that position. He said that if someone wanted to go hunting for a particular rare bird and ran out of magazines, they were going to miss the hunt as a result, which is unfair. The officials respectfully pointed out to him that if the person could not go out and get the magazine because his licence had not been renewed or was not valid, he would not be able to go hunting or use his firearm either.

His comments were not even relevant to the situation. It just goes to show that even though someone may try to look like they know what they are talking about, that is not always the case. The amendment on magazines was a win for all the groups that had been calling for it, such as PolyRemembers and many other gun control advocacy groups.

We have heard a little bit about the yellow flag measure, which allows chief firearms officers to suspend or revoke a licence in cases of domestic violence. We wanted to improve certain passages where, in the initial bill, chief firearms officers were given a little too much discretion as to when the person had to surrender the licence or the guns and to whom. This was strengthened thanks to amendments from the Bloc Québécois that went on to be adopted. The government, the NDP and even the Green Party, which does not have the right to vote in committee, but had proposed the same amendments, were in favour. As I recall, the Conservatives also voted in favour of these amendments. It was another great example of unanimity to strengthen measures to combat domestic violence. These are the kinds of real gains that can be made in committee.

When we were working on this file, we realized that it was easier to accomplish some things through legislation and others through regulation. I nevertheless consider it a win that the minister has made a public commitment to certain things. That was the case for the pre-authorization of firearms.

As I already explained here in the House, a pharmaceutical company that wants to bring a new drug to market, for example, must have Health Canada's approval before being able to do so. This does not seem to happen with firearms. Sometimes, guns are put on the market and, at some point, the RCMP realizes that they were not classified properly. We wondered if the RCMP could be consulted before guns arrive on the market, and how to do that. We racked our brains. It was quite complicated, but the minister finally agree to do it when he announced new amendments in early May.

We are pleased about that. Obviously, a promise is a promise. We have seen the Liberal government breaking its promises on many occasions, so we hope that the minister will act quickly on this right after Bill C‑21 is passed. There is nothing stopping him from doing that.

We also need to update the regulations on large-capacity magazines. To be honest, it was PolyRemembers that made me aware of that issue.

When I asked the minister or public servants whether I was mistaken or whether large-capacity magazines were still legal in Canada, I was told that they were no longer legal. However, when I visited the RCMP vault, I saw that some magazines can be blocked with the help of a small rivet. For example, a magazine with 30 rounds can be blocked and limited to five rounds. The magazine therefore becomes legal because it is technically considered a five-round magazine. However, it is very easy for a mass murderer to simply remove the rivet to create a high-capacity magazine. That has happened in Canada and it cost the lives of dozens of people. We then said that, since we were considering the matter of magazines, perhaps we could strengthen the regulations in that regard. That is what the minister committed to doing. I am also very pleased about that. Once again, he will have to keep his word on that.

Then, there is the issue of the much-discussed prospective definition, which is something that I would not necessarily consider as a loss, but something we would have liked. It comes up often. It means that it applies only to future firearms. This means that, as we speak and even after Bill C‑21 passes, there will still be over 482 models of assault-style firearms in circulation in this country.

We therefore suggested to the minister that they should be banned by decree. Amongst them, a few firearms had been identified as being reasonably used for hunting. Let us set them aside for now and ask the Canadian firearms advisory committee for a recommendation on how to classify them. Let us ban the others that are still in circulation right away.

The minister can put an order into effect immediately, tomorrow morning, today or yesterday. He could have already done that. This easy solution is available to him, and I think it is a reasonable solution. I hope he will do that as well.

I would like to go over a few things that happened in committee. As I mentioned before, this was my first real experience of a clause-by-clause review in committee, and it was extremely interesting. It is worth pointing out that the process happened late at night, when I imagine not too many reporters were watching. Some really interesting things happened that deserve to be highlighted, such as the moment the Bloc Québécois saved the government's handgun freeze.

There was a clause in Bill C‑21 that exempted certain persons from the handgun freeze, such as sport shooters in an Olympic discipline. Everyone else was covered by the handgun freeze. The NDP usually supports just about everything the government does, but it disagreed on this specific point. Both the Conservative Party and the NDP proposed amendments that would have made the handgun freeze inoperative and completely irrelevant by including too many people in the exemption.

Interestingly, at that point, just before the vote, the Liberal member for Kings—Hants logged on and spoke. His government tried to prevent him from speaking, but with committee giving unanimous consent, he was able to speak before voting on these amendments. He abstained, which made it a tie. The votes were equal on both sides, for and against. In a very rare occurrence, the committee chair himself had to cast a vote, and he voted with the government.

It is fair to say that if the Bloc Québécois had also abstained or voted against these amendments, the government's handgun freeze would have simply fallen by the wayside. When we say that we want better gun control in this country, that is part of it. This is a measure that the government has proposed. The Bloc Québécois is true to its values on this issue, and it has remained true to its values on the handgun freeze as well.

I see that my time is running out. I still have a lot to say, but what I want to discuss the most is ghost guns. When we went to visit the RCMP vault, we saw how easy it is to assemble an illegal weapon from gun parts ordered over the Internet. The police officers made us aware of it too. Organized crime and illegal firearms trafficking is all part of it.

The measure included in Bill C‑21 is a good one, and we are proud of it.

I would be pleased to take questions from my colleagues.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read a third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am happy to be rising today to discuss this piece of legislation, but I am happy to be rising as a law-abiding firearms owner to defend my fellow law-abiding firearms owners.

How did we get here? I will put things in context so the people who might be watching at home know whom they are listening to. I am a member of Parliament for an urban-rural split riding in central Alberta. Half of my constituents live in Red Deer, the third-largest city in Alberta, and the other half live on a first nation reserve, or in a rural setting in Red Deer County, Lacombe County or Ponoka County, or in a small town, city or village therein.

I would consider the people I represent to be honest, hard-working, law-abiding folks who want their tax dollars spent wisely and want the freedom to pursue whatever they want to pursue in life. Many of them pursue various things that involve firearms, including hunting, farming on farms like the one I grew up on, where firearms are just a tool and an everyday part of life, or sport shooting. This is very popular in my constituency. There are numerous stores and vendors in central Alberta that supply firearms, ammunition and parts because of the demand that is there.

I can tell members that we do not have the problems that my colleague who just spoke talked about in her large urban centre, because we respect the law. We put policies in place at the provincial level, and when we are the governing party, we put laws in place that actually crack down on criminals. That is where the actual issue lies.

I can assure Canadians who might be watching at home that the firearms I own are doing nothing right now. They do not do anything until someone picks them up. The issue at hand is violent crime and who has access to firearms. There are numerous provisions in this bill, Bill C-21, that do not address, penalize or in any way affect the outcome of dealing with the wrong people getting a hold of firearms.

How did we get here? Over the course of the preceding decades, Canada was a country that was a rugged place to settle, and it is still a rugged place for some who live in rural areas or adjacent to wild areas or who are farming, involved in forestry, or doing something as seemingly innocuous as keeping beehives. Anybody watching at home who grew up with cartoon books would know that Winnie-the-Pooh was addicted to honey. This is not by chance. Bears often frequent these places, and good, honest people have bought firearms to protect themselves, many of whom were caught up in the order in council that came out a number of years ago.

It all started in the 1930s. If we go back that far, every single firearm and handgun in this country has been put in a registry, but that does not stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally. The government of the day, whenever it is Liberal or Liberal-leaning, seems to want to blame the law-abiding citizen, so, for decades, we have had a firearms registry and the government knows where all the lawfully owned handguns in this country are. Changes were brought in back when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister, including a long-gun registry, which was wasteful and ineffective. The government of the day said it would cost only $2 million, but it was actually closer to $2 billion. Of course, it did not do anything to address violent crime.

We have seen the current government, in its first mandate, put in place Bill C-75, which basically codified in law bail provisions that would let people out in the shortest amount of time with the smallest number of restrictions, and now we see what has happened with that.

What did Bill C-21 originally do? When the members of this House were invited to speak to the bill, it was simply the codification in law of an order in council to ban the transfer of handguns. Then, sneakily, the government decided to table-drop, back in November, a huge stack of amendments that had absolutely nothing to do with handguns. They were all about long guns, and of course the government bit off far more than it could chew.

The government managed to alienate almost all of its voting base when it comes to indigenous Canadians, who were offended by the fact that the firearms used by indigenous people were largely going to be caught up in amendment G-46, taking away their ability to use that firearm.

There was also an evergreen clause in G-4, and I am sorry to report that there is a new evergreen clause put in place that does virtually the same thing, with a minor exception, which I will explain in a few minutes, when I get back to what the problem actually is with the government's notions going forward on its new evergreen clause.

We all remember what happened. It was pretty obvious, because we heard the recordings from the Mass Casualty Commission. The government actually interfered. It took this mass casualty event in Nova Scotia and interfered in the investigation by demanding that the officers who were investigating at the time turn over information to advance a political agenda of the government of the day.

We know it is not about evidence. It is not evidence-based policy-making; it is policy-based evidence-making and evidence-finding, even if it interferes with a police investigation. That is why there is very little trust by law-abiding firearms owners in the intentions of the Liberal government, which is supported by the NDP, and what it is doing.

What is the problem? The problem is violent crime. In the last eight years, violent crime has risen because of the provisions that have been passed by the government when it had a majority and with the support of other left-leaning parties in this place. They passed numerous pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, that have basically eliminated any consequences whatsoever for people who commit crimes, so much so that violent crime in the last eight years is up 32% over what it was when the Prime Minister and his government inherited the government offices of this place.

More astonishing is this number: 94% increase in gang-related homicides. One would think that an almost doubling of the number of homicides by gang members would trigger a response from the government to crack down on organized crime, but it actually has done the opposite. The passages and clauses in the Criminal Code that would deal with people who are repeat violent offenders have largely been removed, as well as any semblance of a minimum sentence. I am not even talking about mandatory minimum sentences put in place by Stephen Harper when he was prime minister, and by the way crime went down over those 10 years, but I am getting to the point of the fact that numerous basic minimum sentences were removed.

These were put in place by people like Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. Of the 12 firearms-related clauses in that piece of legislation, 11 were actually put in place by previous Liberal governments, and the current version of the Liberal government has removed even the most basic minimum sentences for violent crime, including smuggling, firing a gun irresponsibly or even holding a gun to somebody's head for the purpose of extortion. It has removed any mandatory jail time whatsoever for those.

That is the tone and the signal Liberals have sent to the country. Why would criminals not want to increase their activity? There are no consequences, and this is the problem.

I will give an example of the illogic of what the government is doing right now. According to the RCMP's website, there are approximately 430 gangs in Canada with 7,000 members in those gangs. If we look at the average number of homicides committed by people associated with gangs over the last five or six years, it is about 50% of murders. Fifty per cent of murders are committed by gang members, or about 125 a year. There are 2.2 million licensed gun owners in this country. If we look over that same time period, we will see that they are charged for homicide about 12 times a year.

That is 12 out of 2.2 million people versus 125 out of 7,000 people. Who does the government go after? It goes after the 2.2 million. It does not make any sense whatsoever. If we do the math, a gang member is 3,300 times more likely to commit murder with a firearm than a law-abiding firearm owner is, yet the government focuses only on the law-abiding firearm owner.

Gary Mauser, professor emeritus, did an analysis for Statistics Canada that shows that Canadians who are not licensed firearms owners are still three times more likely to commit a homicide than a vetted, licensed gun owner is. For the people who are watching at home, the safest people in Canada for them to be with are legally vetted, law-abiding firearm owners who, at any time, could have their firearms taken away with any complaint lodged against them. That means that every firearm owner meticulously follows the laws of storage, the laws of transportation and the laws of safe discharge. As a matter of fact, we jokingly quip sometimes that gun control meetings are about making sure one's muzzle is always pointed downrange. That is what gun control is to a law-abiding gun owner. We follow all the rules because we do not want to risk losing our privileges, because the fact is that every firearm in Canada is illegal unless it is in the possession of somebody with a licence who is authorized to have that firearm.

We have to go through a renewal process every five years, during which our entire history, including our mental health history, our medical history and anything that might have happened before the courts is reviewed in detail. We wait months to get our licence renewed. Sometimes it is not renewed on time. This puts us in a situation, as law-abiding firearm owners, where we are now in possession of our firearms, which were legal one day, but of which, because of the incompetence of the government to process an application on time, we are now technically, according to the law, illegally in possession. We actually had a clause, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, where people had a six-month grace period. I am very frustrated by the removal of that grace period, and I will get to that in a minute.

In committee, Dr. Caillin Langmann from McMaster University basically laid it out for everybody to see. His brief states:

The foregoing research papers are peer reviewed and conclude that Canadian legislation to regulate and control firearm possession and acquisition does not have a corresponding effect on homicide and suicide rates.

It also states:

I was asked to produce a review paper for the Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2021. This paper entitled, “Suicide, firearms, and legislation: A review of the Canadian evidence” reviewed 13 studies regarding suicide and legislative efforts and found an associated reduction in suicide by firearm in men aged 45 and older but demonstrated an equivalent increase in suicide by other methods such as hanging. Factors such as unemployment, low income, and indigenous populations were associated with suicide rates....

My conclusions are based on sound statistical analysis and information specifically related to Canada. I am not aware of any other Canadian research which uses reliable statistical models to dispute or disagree with my conclusions.

The brief also states:

Bans of military-appearing firearms, semiautomatic rifles and handguns, short barrel handguns and Saturday night specials in the 1990s has resulted in no associated reduction in homicide rates.

To summarize the results, no statistically significant beneficial associations were found between firearms legislation and homicide by firearm, as well as spousal homicide by firearms, and the criminal charge of “Discharge of a Firearm with Intent”....

Other studies have demonstrated agreement with my studies that laws targeting restricted firearms such as handguns and certain semi-automatic and full automatic firearms in Canada also had no associated effect with homicide rates. Canadian studies by Leenaars and Lester 2001, Mauser and Holmes 1992, and McPhedran and Mauser 2013, are all in general agreement with my study.

The issue is violent crime. It is about controlling violent criminals, controlling those people. One can control inanimate objects all one wants, but it will not change anything. Therefore, the “who” is not the problem. It is not hunters. Over eight million people in this country hunt and fish, contributing $19 billion annually to the GDP, and the order in council has already banned rifles used for hunting, some that even conservation officers use. I was a conservation officer. I was a national park warden and I was issued firearms for my duties. I was a park ranger in charge of a park in the province of Alberta and I was issued firearms for those duties as well. Every person I dealt with as a conservation officer was at least a camper who had an axe, a fisherman who had a knife or a hunter who had either a rifle or a bow and arrow. I had no trouble with those good people, no trouble whatsoever.

We are going to ban the very guns that conservation officers use, but they do not have those firearms. The Yukon government actually had to go around the order in council to buy firearms for its conservation officers, because those are the best firearms available to protect its officers from bears, mountain lions and all of the other issues that conservation officers face, because that is where the real issue lies.

It is very clear to me as a hunter, that, with the changes the Liberals have made, they are weasel words, especially the evergreen clause that deals with magazines. I laid it out very clearly at committee that anybody who wants to interpret it that way can say that, as long as a firearm can take a magazine that holds more than five rounds, it shall be banned. After this becomes law, we would end up in a situation in which, with guns that are functionally identical, one from 10 years ago and a new firearm, one would be prohibited and the other would still be legal. This is because of the clear lack of knowledge and understanding, when it comes to firearms, of people who do not own guns, making laws that simply do not work. We are going to have that scenario again.

However, if people think their gun is safe because they have an older gun that is not included in the new evergreen clause, they should think again, because the firearms committee that would be struck would still have the same authority to do a firearms reference table analysis and ban whatever guns it does not like.

I have news for everybody in this room. If we look at all of the hunting regulations in all of the provinces and territories in this country, a hunting rifle is a rifle that is in the hands of a hunter, used for the purposes of the hunt. It does not matter what it looks like; it just matters what the calibre of the bullet is, so the animal can be safely dispatched.

I could go on for literally a couple more hours and talk about the end of cowboy mounted shooting, cowboy action shooting, IPSC, all of these sports for all of these good people. They are mostly Filipinos there, by the way, when I go to an IPSC event. They are people who have moved here from a country that never allowed them to own firearms, but they have come here and taken up this sport and activity. They are frustrated because, when we take away the ability to transfer these handguns between law-abiding citizens, it will be the end of thousands of people's enjoyment of the sports that involve handguns. I look forward to answering some hopefully logical questions from around the room.

Before I conclude, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 0.1, 1.1 and 17, with a view to ensure that the government cannot take away hunting rifles from law-abiding farmers, hunters and Indigenous peoples.”

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I had the displeasure of sitting through the public safety committee and listening to a lot of the rhetoric that came from the other side, both NDP and Liberal, on this bill. Contrary to public opinion, it does not improve public safety. Contrary to the rhetoric coming from the parliamentary secretary, it does not improve public safety.

We did not hear from one group of individuals who supported red flag laws. In fact, PolySeSouvient, who were big fans of the Liberals up until the Liberals refused to listen to them, and 20 other national women's groups have asked to please not invoke red flag laws in Bill C-21, because they do not work. They put women victims at risk. I stood up and said that, from my experience, the current law works and it works well. Why are the Liberals so dogmatic and not listening to the Canadian public? We know the answer, because that is what they always do.

What is the explanation for why the Liberals will not listen to Canadians? Women's groups that used to support the government are saying to please remove red flag laws from this bill. Why have the Liberals not done that?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I also want to acknowledge the impact colonial practices have had on indigenous peoples, from overincarceration to overrepresentation in foster care and missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

Today, we begin third reading on Bill C-21, a bill that has been greatly improved through consultation with Canadians and indigenous peoples and in co-operation with the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. I wish more Canadians watched what happens at committee. It has been my experience throughout my time in this place that legislation has been improved at committee, and Bill C-21 is no exception. The bill we have before us today reflects that work.

Before talking about the bill itself, I would like to talk about some of those changes. The member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia is an exceptional parliamentarian, and I have had the pleasure of working with her for three and a half years now. She introduced important amendments, including the requirement for a possession and acquisition licence, or PAL, to purchase, transport and export or import cartridge magazines. This was an ask made by a number of stakeholders, but none more loudly or more courageously than the Danforth Families for Safe Communities.

Their story is tragic and well known, but we all know that the gun used that night on Danforth Avenue was a legally imported handgun that had later been stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan. The Danforth shooter then walked into a sporting goods store and legally bought seven magazines for his gun, with no questions asked, simply because a PAL was not required for him to buy them. That will no longer be possible now that these amendments have been adopted and once the bill becomes law. Let us think about that. Prior to these amendments, people did not have to prove that they had licences to purchase and own firearms in order to buy the thing that literally holds the bullets. That changes now.

This major amendment was passed unanimously. To be clear, it will not affect those licensed to carry a firearm. It will ensure that those who are not licensed to possess a firearm cannot legally buy cartridge magazines. Requiring gun owners to show their licences to purchase magazines just makes sense. People do not need magazines if they do not have licences to own a gun.

We also heard from the airsoft industry that the bill went too far and that the industry was willing to work with the government to regulate its sport. An amendment initiated by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford passed, so the clause deeming airsoft guns to be prohibited devices was removed from the bill. Thanks go to the airsoft community for working productively with our government to find a compromise that would ensure public safety is upheld while allowing the sport to be regulated.

Gun control is a women’s issue. The Canadian Women's Foundation notes that the presence of firearms in Canadian households is the single greatest risk factor for the lethality of intimate partner violence. Access to a firearm increases the likelihood of femicide by 500%. The Ontario coroner's death review panel said that 26% of women who were killed by their partner were killed using a firearm.

I have heard from such groups as the Lethbridge YWCA, which told me that every single woman who came to its shelter had been threatened by a partner with a firearm. They are among the nearly 2,500 women victimized in this way over the last five years. Intimate partner violence accounts for nearly 30% of all police-reported violent crime in Canada, and that number rose during the pandemic. In my riding and across the country, such local organizations as Halton Women's Place are helping to shine a brighter light on the dangers of gun violence.

Over the last eight years, as a country, we have also become more aware of the role that coercive control plays in abusive relationships. When firearms are added to the mix, it is a recipe for continued physical, emotional and psychological abuse. In coercive control, a man might use a gun to control a woman without ever pulling the trigger. Such control is real, and it happens every day. An Oakville resident sent me a note that stated, “Let me just say that you can endure the physical and emotional abuse, but when he pulls out a double-barrelled shotgun, loads it and tells you he is going to kill you, then you know true terror. Thank you for looking out for the victims before they become statistics.”

Our government has been advocating for women and will continue to do so. Through Bill C-21, we are taking additional steps to support survivors of intimate partner violence who have been threatened with or who have been on the receiving end of violence with a firearm.

The Bloc Québécois, New Democratic Party and Green Party all put forward amendments to strengthen the intimate partner violence provisions of Bill C-21. The National Association for Women and the Law tweeted on Monday that they were “pleased that virtually all the amendments [they] proposed were adopted, some unanimously!” These amendments will make women safer.

During the clause-by-clause process, we included an amendment to further define a protection order. A protection order:

...is intended to include any binding order made by a court or other competent authority in the interest of the safety or security of a person; this includes but is not limited to orders that prohibit a person from:

(a) being in physical proximity to an identified person or following an identified person from place to place;

(b) communicating with an identified person, either directly or indirectly;

(c) being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place;

(d) engaging in harassing or threatening conduct directed at an identified person;

(e) occupying a family home or a residence; or

(f) engaging in family violence.

Protection orders are imperative to keep women safe. By setting minimum standards in the bill, people who have been subject to a protection order will now be ineligible to hold a firearms licence. We know that when a woman leaves an abusive partner, the first day is the most dangerous and violent. That is why there is an amendment to ensure that firearms are removed within 24 hours.

I thank the National Association of Women and the Law for their leadership on these amendments. Because of these changes in the bill, we will save women’s lives.

I am particularly pleased that the red-flag provision of the bill remains, ensuring that those concerned about a firearms owner being a danger to themselves or others can now apply to a judge for an order to immediately remove firearms from an individual who may present such a danger. Dr. Najma Ahmed from Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns stated this:

We support the proposed “red flag” law. Family members, physicians and concerned individuals must have access to an efficient process to quickly have firearms removed from someone who may be at risk to themselves or others.

In Canada, suicide accounts for about 75% of gun deaths. A gun in the home increases adolescent suicide rates by threefold to fourfold. Evidence from other jurisdictions shows that “red flag” laws are effective in reducing firearm suicides.

Most people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. This is why restricting access to lethal means saves lives. Suicide attempts with a gun are almost uniformly fatal.

The provision will also ensure that women who cannot go to the police have another tool to remove the firearm from their home. To support these new red-flag provisions, Public Safety Canada will establish a program to help raise awareness among victims about how to use the new protections. A guide about how to submit an application to the courts and the protections available could be developed, and the program would fund services to support individuals’ applications throughout the court process. It would support the most vulnerable and marginalized groups, including women, people with mental health issues, indigenous groups and other racialized communities, to help make certain that the red-flag laws are accessible to all, particularly those who may need it most. The government would also make available $5 million through a contribution program to ensure support and equitable access.

It is also important to state unequivocally that the fiduciary duty of peace officers under common law continues in force, notwithstanding the ability for any person to make an application for an emergency prohibition order. Simply put, police will still be required to do their job of removing guns from dangerous individuals. As I said, it just provides one additional tool for people to use, especially if calling the police is not an option.

In addition, an important amendment introduced by the government is a non-derogation clause. It states Parliament's intent that:

The provisions enacted by the Act [following Bill C-21] are to be construed as upholding the [aboriginal and treaty] rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.

Nothing in Bill C-21 would take away from section 35 rights; the Constitution still remains the law of the land.

While I know that he opposes the bill itself, I appreciate the way the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound worked with all parties to include an amendment that further spells out what has already been allowed in practice. Namely, ensuring that anyone with a handgun is able to temporarily store their firearm with a business or individual who also possesses an RPAL for any reason. This includes if an individual recognizes that they are experiencing a mental health crisis and do not want to have access to their firearm.

This example was one that was particularly important to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and to many of whom he spoke, including some veterans. I commend him for the way he conducted himself and the important addition he made to clarify the provisions related to the authorizations to transport in the Firearms Act. It is unfortunate that all members of the Conservative Party were not as constructive.

In particular, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe chose to politicize the requirement for a PAL to buy a magazine and attacked me while I shared the Danforth Families for Safe Communities' story. The member proceeded to post our exchange on social media saying that I had compared every hunter in Canada to the Danforth shooter, and that every single hunter should take note of what I think about them.

That is not what I said, but thanks to this member's misrepresentation, my direct messages have been filled with threats and misogynistic comments that use language I cannot repeat in the House. This kind of disinformation is typical of the Conservative Party throughout the debate.

The Conservative public safety critic and others continue to spread the false claim that Bill C-21 is targeting hunters. This is fearmongering. I have noticed that the Conservative Party prefers this approach of spreading fear to make Canadians fearful of leaving their homes, using our parks or taking public transit, and fearful of each other.

We are focusing on protecting Canadians and doing the hard work it takes to keep them safe. Conservative politicians prefer to fearmonger and speak in catchy slogans, rather than taking action to prevent crime, keep women safe and remove weapons designed for the battlefield from our streets.

I would now like to turn to other provisions found in Bill C-21. Canadians have been calling upon successive governments for reform and stronger gun control, and in May 2020 we took additional action through an order in council to ban over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms, including the AR-15.

As U.S. Major General Paul Eaton, retired, has said, “For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war.” These weapons, designed for the battlefield, have no place on Canadian streets. I have a question for the Conservative Party: Would it make the AR-15 legal again?

Through Bill C-21, we are building on the work done in 2020 to offer a prospective technical definition to ensure that, in addition to the weapons banned in 2020, no future similar weapons will ever be able to enter the Canadian market. Furthermore, the Minister of Public Safety has committed to taking action through regulation to take the burden away from firearms owners to make manufacturers responsible for classifying firearms. This responds to recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission. Doctors for Protection from Guns called the definition “A victory for science, public health, and Canadian values...to permanently ban future models of assault weapons.”

In addition, we are implementing a national freeze on handguns to prevent individuals from bringing newly acquired handguns into Canada, and from buying, selling and transferring handguns within the country, a freeze which, through regulations, has been in effect since October 2022.

It was actually Ken Price of the Danforth Families for Safe Communities who was one of the first proponents of implementing a national freeze on handguns. When Ken testified at committee he stated:

In summary, there's clear evidence on the association between access to handguns and endemic gun violence, and access to semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines and multiple mass shooting events. There is good evidence that the restriction of access to these weapons reduces endemic gun violence and reduces the number of victims of multiple mass shooting events.

Ultimately, it's a choice society has to make. What guns are permissible? What should we allow access to? What level of gun violence are we willing to accept in our community?

Our government is making that choice with Bill C-21. We cannot and will not tolerate gun violence in our communities, while we continue to respect those who hunt for sustenance, sport or tradition.

Bill C-21 would also address illegal smuggling and trafficking at the border by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools for law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes and strengthening border security measures. Chief Evan Bray of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police testified at committee in support of these provisions, saying:

“With regard to firearms smuggling and trafficking, we support the implementation of new firearms-related offences, intensified border controls and strengthened penalties to help deter criminal activities and to combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, thereby reducing the risk that illegal firearms find their way into Canadian communities and are used to commit criminal offences. The CACP welcomes changes that provide new police authorizations and tools to access information about licence-holders in the investigation of individuals who are suspected of conducting criminal activities, such as straw purchasing and weapons trafficking.”

We need to remember that Bill C-21 would take a multipronged approach that addresses gun violence. This would include increasing penalties for illegal gun smugglers, freezing the sale of handguns, taking action to address the proliferation of ghost guns and introducing measures that make it safer for women to leave abusive relationships.

I am very proud to be part of a government that has passed Bill C-71, and that now, hopefully, will pass Bill C-21. I have heard from Canadians who applaud what we are doing with this bill. They have thanked us for our work on this, saying that guns and ease of access will never be more important than human lives and public safety, and that the bill would protect thousands of people’s lives.

Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control, who has been working on this issue for over 30 years, said:

No law is ever perfect but Bill C-21 is a game changer for Canada and should be implemented as soon as possible. The law responds to most of the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission and the demands of the Coalition for Gun Control...which, with more than 200 supporting organizations, has fought for stronger firearm laws for more than thirty years.

I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the work that PolySeSouvient has done for over 30 years to make our country safer. Its advocacy work grew from the misogynistic slaughter of women at Polytechnique in 1989, and I have the utmost respect for their dedication to gun control.

I want to close by giving special thanks to the Liberal, Bloc and NDP members of the public safety committee, who worked together, at times into the wee hours of the night, to ensure that the bill we have before us is better than when it started. I thank the New Democratic Party and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and the Bloc Québécois and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I also have to give a special shout-out to Sarah Thomas, Conor Lewis and all the staff, without whom we as members could not do our jobs. I thank the minister and his team for their herculean efforts on this bill, and the Prime Minister, for making gun control a central policy of our government.

We will vote on this bill tomorrow. It will be a legacy for this government, one that I am incredibly proud of.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

moved that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the third time and passed.

Firearms

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are asking that Bill C-21 die on the Order Paper. It is an affront to private property rights. All it does is confiscate legal firearms from lawful citizens and does nothing to get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals.

Criminal Code

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

moved that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:24 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-21.

Call in the members.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 6, 9 and 12.

The House resumed from May 16 consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Firearms

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for all of the work that she does in her community. Like the residents of Châteauguay—Lacolle, the people in my riding of Honoré-Mercier are too often faced with gun violence.

I am proud to be able to tell them that we are taking action with Bill C-21. It is no secret that we would have liked to go even further, but even the strictest bill is no good if we cannot pass it. Bill C-21 may not be perfect, but it will make our communities a lot safer. What is clear is that the only way to keep assault weapons out of our communities is to have a Liberal government.

Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you might find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so we could continue the debate on Bill C-21.

Criminal Code

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-21. It is an act to make certain consequential amendments in relation to firearms, which is really the government's way of saying that this is a bill to confiscate hunting rifles from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people, and distract from the real issue of the crime wave that is going on in Canada right now. That is really what this bill is. It is purely a distraction to distract from what is going on in our streets, on our subways and in some of our schoolyards right now. It is another virtue-signalling bill from the current government, to pretend it is going to do something about smuggled handguns, illegally attained guns and gang violence, but not actually do anything.

It is a distraction bill to take the focus away from the disastrous result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. It is a distraction from the multiple police officers who have fallen on the job very recently and the random stabbings in Toronto, the Lower Mainland and my hometown of Edmonton. All these random attacks hurt, but the one in Edmonton strikes very close to home. A mother and her 11-year-old child were stabbed to death in a schoolyard park. EPS police chief, Dale McFee, commented on the attack. He said it was “completely random. In no way could the victims have anticipated what would happen to them. There is no making sense of this.” This was a mother and her daughter who were in the playground of a schoolyard. A person drove up, got out of his car, stabbed them to death and just left. It was completely random. The police chief said, “There is no making sense of this.” I agree with Chief McFee that it makes zero sense that this would happen. He also said that the victims could not have anticipated the attack, and I agree with that as well.

However, here is the kicker: The court system could have anticipated this attack, and should have, and we should have had laws to protect this family. The killer had been released just 18 days earlier, on bail from a previous assault. He had a record. The killer was only 33 years old, and he had a record going back 14 years, having been in and out of jail, released on bail, and having had constant charges of assault with a weapon. He was in and out of prison repeatedly. There were robberies. He had stabbed someone who was just sitting on a bus bench. His parole documents stated to him, “You were armed with a knife and stabbed your victim once in the upper back. You then fled on foot. Your victim's injuries include a punctured aorta and a laceration to his spinal cord.” These are not simple injuries. This is attempted murder, yet he was back out on the streets. Between committing that crime and committing the murders in Edmonton, the attacker assaulted a corrections officer and two inmates, and was released, despite the warnings from parole officers. We have to ask where we have heard this before. He was sent back to prison after testing positive for meth, but was released again and assaulted four more people; three of them were assaulted with weapons. He attacked a 12-year-old on the bus just last year, and on the same day was charged with assaulting someone else. Then, he assaulted someone else with a weapon. He was sent to prison on April 14 for another assault and then released on bail. He then went on to murder someone and her young child.

That is what the Liberals are trying to distract from with this bill. It is to distract from their disastrous catch-and-release laws that they have inflicted upon Canadians. The Liberal government will sit and say that it fixed catch-and-release today. However, for five or six years now, the Liberals have denied it was a problem. I want to quote the present public safety minister, in debate. He said that this would simplify the release process “so that police and judges are required to consider the least restrictive and alternative means of responding to a breach, rather than automatically detaining an accused” and that “police would...be required to impose the least onerous conditions necessary if an accused is released.”

A mother and her child are dead in Edmonton because of this law. The Liberals can claim that they are fixing it, but they had half a decade to do something, with warnings from the police chief, warnings from the opposition bench and warnings from the premiers. It is not good enough that they are saying,“Well, we're going to play around with it today. Everything is fine.” It is not fine.

I want to go back to Edmonton police chief Dale McFee. We are talking about the catch-and-release program. For a three-year period, Edmonton saw a 30% increase in shooting victims. Chief McFee stated that the biggest problem is building to attack gang violence, and that most of the problem is gangs and organized crime. It is not a law-abiding hunter going out for a catch. It is not a farmer with his shotgun plinking away at varmints or pests. The police chief says it is organized crime and gangs. Subsequent to Bill C-75 being introduced, 3,600 individuals were arrested for violent crimes in Edmonton in a one-year period. Two years after that, 2,400 of those 3,600 reoffended, a total of 19,000 times, including 26 homicides. That is the result of Bill C-75, the catch-and-release program of the government. That is what this government is trying to distract from. Instead of going after criminals, repeat offenders, they want to confiscate shotguns and hunting rifles from hunters, farmers and indigenous people. The government should be going after the criminals and trying to make life miserable for them, not trying to make life miserable for law-abiding hunters and farmers.

Canadians should not be fooled by this new bill, Bill C-21. The Liberals brought in some amendments and said, “Oh, we fixed all your concerns.” Canadians should not be fooled by this. The Liberals' so-called new definitions are basically the same as the old ones that are targeting hunting rifles. The same ones that they went after before, they will go after again. I do not think anyone should believe that this new Liberal firearms advisory panel would be any different than what they had proposed previously.

This is the same government, members will remember, that politicized the Nova Scotia shooting tragedy. It is the same government that said that it was the police forces that recommended the Emergency Act, but we asked the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP, and they both said no.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that Bill C-21 aims to ban various reproductions of antique firearms, such as the flintlock pistol. These firearms are single-shot, muzzleloading, black powder firearms that require time and effort to reload for each shot. These firearms are curated by collectors, used in re-enactments, and do not pose any significant threat to public safety.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, if Bill C‑21 is as terrible as my colleague claims, I would like her to tell me why the Conservative party voted in favour of every one of the government's amendments on ghost guns.

Why did the Conservative party vote for the Bloc Québécois's amendments on magazines? Why did the Conservative party amend Bill C‑21 to enhance it by adding a definition of family violence, for example?

The Conservatives also moved a very helpful amendment on firearm advertising. Could it be that Bill C‑21 is not so bad after all?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking all my colleagues who serve on the committee that dealt with this bill, for the many hours they put in, providing great questions to the departmental officials. I was greatly impressed by their questions, and was grateful for the opportunity to participate, even if I was not asking the questions, by hearing what the answers were.

I find it really rich for that member, who has actually bargained away his responsibility, as a member of an opposition party, to hold the government to account on deeply flawed legislation, which is what Bill C-21 is. It is not about enhancing public safety. This bill would basically create a confiscation program.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments, firearms, at report stage. The bill has gone through quite the journey in this place, filled with huge backtracks, misleading statements from the government, and the repackaging and introduction of previously repealed amendments.

As a reminder, let us look at that journey. The introduction of Bill C-21 was first announced at the end of May last year, with all the fanfare that the government could muster when trotting out yet another misguided and ineffective policy. The Liberals claimed the bill would, among other things, ban the future legal sale of handguns in Canada, increase the allowable penalties for gun smuggling and trafficking, and introduce new red-flag provisions that may allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a dangerous domestic situation more quickly.

Shortly after seeing the bill, Conservatives attempted to introduce the following motion:

...that given that the debate on combatting gun violence needs to be depoliticized and centred on the rights of victims and the safety of communities, the House should call on the government to divide Bill C-21 into two parts to allow for those measures where there is broad support across all parties to proceed separately, namely curbing domestic violence and tackling the flow of guns over the Canada-U.S. border, from those aspects of the bill that divide the House.

Conservatives were clear. We supported the elements of Bill C-21 that were focused on protecting potential victims of gun crime and tightening up laws that address gun smuggling. Unfortunately, the Liberals were not willing to back down on their political agenda and separate the ineffective and divisive parts of their bill that would do nothing to stop gun violence and provide no benefit to vulnerable Canadians. They blocked this common-sense motion, proving they were more interested in playing division politics than addressing gun violence in Canada.

I will fast-forward to November, 2022, when the Liberal government introduced amendments to Bill C-21 that would have banned millions of hunting rifles with a new prohibition of any “rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges”.

For weeks, the Liberals denied that their amendments would outlaw any hunting rifles, then the Prime Minister finally came clean, this past December, and admitted that the government’s amendments would outlaw hunting rifles. While speaking to CTV News he said, “there are some guns, yes, that we’re going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt.”

The Prime Minister finally admitted what the Liberals had been denying the whole time, which was that the Liberal government, with the support of their NDP allies, were going after law-abiding Canadians. Thanks to the leadership and hard work of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul and my Conservative colleagues on the committee, Canadians were made aware of these attempts by the government to attack the rights of law-abiding citizens. The backlash to the attempts of the government was rightly fierce, and the Liberals retracted their amendments, supposedly learning a lesson.

However, we soon learned that they were just biding their time, waiting to try to catch Canadians off guard. Earlier this month, the public safety minister announced new amendments to Bill C-21 to create a definition by which new firearms would be banned. The minister also announced that he would appoint a firearms advisory committee that would determine future bans of firearms that are presently owned by law-abiding Canadian gun owners.

To be clear, the new Liberal definition is the same as the old one, and the new amendments that were brought to the committee were simply original amendments in a new package. It is expected that, between these measures, most of the firearms previously targeted by Liberal amendments late last year, including hunting rifles, would once again be targeted for future bans. It would seem the only lesson the Liberals learned was to give Canadians less time to object to their amendments, so they could force them through and try to cover it up.

That is why the government used some of the most heavy-handed tactics the House has seen, by moving to limit debate on Bill C-21 at committee in an attempt to pass the bill before the break week at the end of May. The Liberals forced multiple midnight sittings of the public safety committee, two of which I did sit in on. They passed Bill C-21 through committee in the wee hours of Friday morning last week by heavily limiting debate on over 140 clauses and amendments.

Even more surprising, both the NDP and the Bloc supported this heavy-handed attempt to pass the bill. They supported the government in enforcing strict time limits at the public safety committee and shutting down debate in the House. It would appear the governing party has suddenly grown by 57 members, which brings us to today and midnight sittings again being scheduled for this week to ram this bill through report stage.

I represent a rural riding. I represent thousands of hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous Canadians. I know they are not supportive of this bill. They have told me. The sentiment from my constituents has been clear. They do not support Bill C-21, and they think it will do more harm than good.

Betty from Delisle raised concerns with the bill that many of my constituents have raised with me. She noted that this bill would target and severely handicap hunters who are trying to feed their families, noting it would cause another skill, which was a staple of our ancestors, to disappear. She also noted this bill would go after target shooting, stating that this bill would have negative consequences for gun clubs that offer training to young people as an activity that keeps them off the streets and away from bad influences. These sentiments are the same as those of rural Canadians across the country.

In fact, the backlash from rural Canadians forced the NDP to backtrack on its support for the government’s initial amendments last time. There are several NDP MPs who represent rural ridings, and my hope, although it is waning, is that they will stand up to the Liberals, stand up for their constituents on this issue, and fight for them here in Ottawa.

The truth of the matter is that this bill is an attack on law-abiding citizens who are legal gun owners. Hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians will not be fooled. They know this is part of the Liberal plan to distract and divide Canadians. No one believes going after hunters and legitimate hunting rifles will reduce violent crime across this country.

This bill is also a distraction, another attempt for the government to distract and divide. It is targeting law-abiding gun owners to distract from its failures on public safety. The Liberal government has given easier access to bail for violent, repeat offenders through Bill C-75. In doing so, it ensured that violent offenders are able to get back onto the streets more quickly. It has removed mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5, and it has failed to stop the flow of illegal firearms coming across the U.S. border.

Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is focused on taking hunting rifles and shotguns away from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples. We know going after hunters and hunting rifles will not reduce crime across the country. The government needs to come clean with Canadians. The only thing worse than doing nothing is pretending to be doing something when one is not.

Conservatives believe we must ensure at-risk and vulnerable Canadians are protected. We must target the criminals and gangs responsible for rising gun violence in Canada. That is why, under the leadership of the member for Carleton, we will continue to support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and ensure there are strong consequences for those who commit gun crimes to make our communities safer.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say how much I value my colleague. I work with him on various committees. I want to congratulate him on his speech.

What I particularly like about my colleague is that when he and I debate, our positions are always based on facts. I am open minded, but now, the Conservatives are telling us that hunters will be penalized if we pass this bill.

My question for my colleague is quite simple, and I am sure he will not dodge it because his statement that hunters would be penalized is surely based on facts.

My question is this, and I look forward to his answer: Can he name a single model of hunting rifle that will be banned if we pass Bill C-21?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, to nobody’s surprise, the Liberals are missing the mark once again. As my Conservative colleagues have reinforced time and time again, legal firearms owners are not criminals. However, Bill C-21 treats them this way. This leads me to believe that the bill is not about firearms or assault-style weapons; rather, it is about philosophy and how the government sees the Canadian people.

It seems that the Liberals may be forgetting or perhaps ignoring what it means to have a firearms licence in Canada. Any hunter or sport shooter will proudly tell us about how they underwent a series of background, mental health, common-sense and legislative regulation tests to receive and maintain their licences. They are proud because they have received the trust of society and want to show themselves worthy of that trust.

If the members opposite actually listened to their rural constituents about these issues, they could also explain that, to legally own and register firearms in Canada, they must subject themselves to random check-ins by law enforcement. Moreover, they must report data, such as residency, more often than do most citizens to ensure the safekeeping of their weapons. Before travelling with a firearm, every firearm has specific safety protocols that must be followed.

With this in mind, how would banning the firearms belonging to law-abiding citizens limit the occurrences of violent gun-related crime? How would a crazy repeat offender get a locked-up pistol or hunting rifle from a law-abiding owner? It does not make sense. We cannot deny that violent crime with firearms does happen in Canada. However, they are not mass produced for the Canadian market. People with the technological know-how in the underground market are the real criminals contributing to crime here. People 3-D printing parts of a rifle and mailing them across the international border into Canada are contributing to the illegal underground market; law-abiding firearms owners are not.

The Liberals do not trust Canadians. They see every gun owner as a potential criminal. As far as they are concerned, one gun in private hands is one gun too many. That there is no scientific evidence showing that Canadian farmers, hunters and sport shooters are turning to a life of gun crime is something they choose to ignore. They say that Canada has a gun crime problem and that this will solve it. However, the Liberals are missing the mark and ignoring the evidence. Gun crimes are not being committed by people who purchase their guns legally and then suddenly become lawless. Canada’s gun crime problem has been created by a government that is unwilling to clamp down on the illegal smuggling of weapons into Canada. Shutting down the gun pipeline is hard, but targeting hunters and sports shooters is easy.

This is not to mention the negative impacts that vastly outweigh the positive; I can only imagine how much this ban will negatively impact many Canadians, ranging from those who inherit rifles to citizens whose everyday lives revolve around a culture of hunting and gathering. I cannot help but wonder what rural Canadians will do if this rifle ban passes. Canada is known to be a well-forested country, meaning that we have a fair amount of rural area. The main source of food for many of these Canadians is hunting, and this has been the case for as long as we can remember. With that in mind, how will these hunters eat if the ban goes through?

As seen through the newly proposed passport design, the Liberals’ disregard for the rich Canadian history that preceded us is nothing new. I am not surprised that the Liberal government is living up to its expectation of continued disappointment that Canadians feel toward the government. The more I look at this bill, the more I agree with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who said, “This is the largest assault on hunters in Canadian history.”

Rifle owners by inheritance will have to face the sad reality that a part of their family history will be stripped from them at the hands of the government, and hunters will have to face an ever-higher rate of food insecurity in this G7 country. Hunters will have their entire way of life uprooted and have to defer to alternative lifestyles, which they may not have the means to adapt to. This is especially the case considering the cost of inflation and the impact that the carbon tax has had on the cost of living. We cannot tell them to go to a grocery store instead. These rural areas have limited access to the essential services they need, and there is no need to take away a major component of how they can be self-sufficient. It is unjustified.

What happened to the Canadian dream, where hard work gets rewarded and where we are the land of freedom with responsibility? The Liberals have led not just me but many other Canadians to feel that everything is off. Life in Canada is not as free as it used to be eight years ago, and this unjust firearms ban is a symbol of this broken feeling.

Rifles do not harm people; the people behind them do. Instead of attacking the real criminals, the members opposite chose to slap some half-baked idea together and call it a day. This is why I say that the Liberals have missed the mark once again, and it raises the following question: How does this help society?

Does it reduce crime in Canada to take rifles away from hunters with no criminal records? It does not. Does it stop gun crime in our nation to make it impossible for an aspiring biathlete or a target shooter to acquire a rifle? It does not. What it really does is make the Liberals feel good. It allows them to pretend that they are doing something without actually having to take real action.

When will they finally admit that the legal firearms owners are not the criminals? When will they humble themselves and admit that their catch-and-release policies are not just ineffective but outright dangerous to society at large? Violent repeat offenders, not our licensed gun owners, are the real criminals. When will the Prime Minister stand up, scrap this nonsense once and for all and propose solutions that actually protect Canadian citizens?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I spoke to this last week when we were debating Motion No. 25. I made reference to the fact that, for the Conservatives, Bill C-21 is the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is why they have wanted to see it stuck in the House; that hoovering sound we can hear is the sound of the Conservative Party's fundraising machine raking in millions of dollars off this bill. I for one am glad to see that the committee has sent it back to the House, because there are two other important bills waiting to be heard. These are Bill C-20, which deals with important RCMP oversight, and Bill C-26, which looks at cybersecurity; these are both very pressing issues. It is high time the public safety committee got to work in addressing those other key issues.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this report stage debate on Bill C-21 to give my voice, and to speak to my residents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

I have had an intimate amount of experience with this bill, having been the former public safety critic, and I have seen just how much time it has taken up at the public safety committee. A lot of people forget that the public safety committee is also called the public safety and national security committee, and there have been important pieces of legislation held up at it because of the inordinate amount of time Bill C-21 has occupied.

Of course, things were going quite well for Bill C-21 until those very ill-advised 11th hour amendments landed on the committee's desk with no warning. That is when the whole process got completely derailed. I am thankful that, due to a lot of pressure from the opposition parties, the government finally saw sense in February and withdrew the problematic amendments that would have really impacted so many hunters, farmers and indigenous communities, because it was quite obvious they had landed with no consultation, had completely taken committee members by surprise, and were not, frankly speaking, backed up by any kind of witness testimony we had heard at committee.

Up until that point, Bill C-21 had primarily been about a handgun freeze. There were some provisions in the bill dealing with red flag laws and yellow flag laws, there was a section covering airsoft guns, and so on, but those amendments just completely expanded the scope of the bill so they were withdrawn. That is an important point to underline here, because I have been listening to the speeches on Bill C-21 for most of the day today, particularly the ones from my Conservative colleagues. A lot of their speeches had to do with standing up for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities, which are all very admirable things to stand in this House to say and do, but the problem is that their speeches are muddying the waters, because they are alluding to amendments that are no longer part of the bill.

In several questions today during debate, I have challenged my Conservative colleagues to name one rifle or one kind of shotgun that is going to be prohibited by Bill C-21. They have all deflected and changed the channel to go on to safer ground that is buoyed by their own talking points because they cannot name a rifle or shotgun that is going to be banned by Bill C-21 as they are not in there.

Instead of reading Conservative talking points, I am going to actually read the bill. The important thing here for everyone who is listening to this debate is the new definition of a “prohibited firearm”. The key clause is as follows. I will read it into the record. It states, “is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force”.

In other words, current makes and models that are legally owned by licensed firearms owners are not touched by this bill. I underline that with an exclamation mark. They would not be touched and would still be legal. It is only for makes and models that are designed, manufactured and come on to the market after Bill C-21 comes into force.

I have heard Conservatives talk about the firearms advisory committee and how it will be stocked with Liberal appointees who will give advice and suggest that certain makes and models be banned. That is a complete red herring. I will tell members why. The government already has the power under the Criminal Code to reclassify firearms by cabinet decree. That is something that has been abused by both Conservative and Liberal governments. How do members think we got the May 2020 order in council that listed those 1,500 firearms? That certainly was not done with the aid of a firearms advisory committee, but by the Liberal government, by cabinet decree through the Canada Gazette, suddenly making a list of firearms, which was done under the existing authority of the Criminal Code.

I am actually glad there will be a firearms advisory committee, because finally we will have someone at the cabinet table advising the minister. They may come from an indigenous background, a hunting background or a sport shooting background. Why is it a bad thing to have these people provide a sober second thought on any kind of decision the government already has the power to do?

These are complete red herrings with respect to everything the Conservatives have said so far about popular hunting rifles or shotguns, which are in fact going to stay legal. In fact, I look forward to going to my local Canadian Tire and outfitting store on the day after Bill C-21 receives royal assent to show all the different makes and models that are still on sale.

There was a disappointment that I had with this bill. I put forward an amendment at committee that was going to amend the section of the bill that would provide to people an exemption from the handgun freeze. I felt that the current definition that would allow only people who were at Olympic level and Paralympic level to have an exemption from the handgun freeze was too narrow. I put forward amendments to that effect, so that it would have been expanded to the International Practical Shooting Confederation or the Single Action Shooting Society. That amendment almost passed because the Liberal member for Kings—Hants actually made a great intervention at committee where he supported my amendment, but when it came to crunch time he abstained. Therefore, on this critical amendment when he had a chance to show his constituents that he was going to sway this important part of the bill, he abstained. As a result it ended up in a five-five tie at committee and of course it was broken by the chair, so we came very close to amending that specific section of the bill.

The reason I backed this up is that during witness testimony we heard from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Their public statement on this was:

We believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these types of firearms, while allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practice their sport.

I took great heart from that statement from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. We had Chief Evan Bray as a witness and he backed that up. The association does believe in a handgun freeze, but it thought there should be exemptions to allow people to continue their sport shooting.

We are at the report stage and I want to address a very confusing Conservative report stage amendment to Bill C-21. I was reviewing that and I looked at Motion No. 12, which has been put forward by the Conservative member for Kildonan—St. Paul. It is shocking because the Conservatives are actually seeking to entirely delete clause 43 from the bill. Why is that important? Clause 43 is the only part of Bill C-21 that would provide an exception to the handgun freeze. It would provide an exception to anyone who has an authorization to carry and to people who are training, competing or coaching in a handgun-shooting discipline under the International Olympic Committee. For some reason the Conservatives want to delete the exemptions to the handgun freeze from the bill. Many of their other report stage amendments that they are seeking to delete are ones that in fact they played a very constructive role at committee in helping amend. The Conservatives are all over the map here on report stage. It is quite clear that Conservatives are flailing around and it is quite evident from their speeches today.

I want to briefly address ghost guns. This was a big ask from the law enforcement departments. We had Inspector Michael Rowe, staff sergeant, from the Vancouver Police Department, who did mention that the barrels, slides and trigger assemblies are a big issue for law enforcement. The advent of 3-D printing has allowed a lot of firearms to come onto the market that are completely untraceable. As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby has stated in this House, their growth has gone exponential. Therefore, law enforcement people have very clearly asked for this amendment to Bill C-21 and I am glad to see that the committee responded in kind.

I also want to salute our NDP efforts to save airsoft. It was my amendment that passed that deleted the offending section of Bill C-21 so that the airsoft community could continue to play its sport and would not be impacted by Bill C-21. I want to thank committee members for allowing that part of the bill to pass.

I will end by also saying that there was a really important amendment to the bill, which would recognize section 35 of the Constitution Act, which of course upholds the rights of indigenous peoples. Bill C-21 would not impact that and it was important to have that clarification to the bill.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Essex for bringing his point of view to this speech.

I do hear Conservatives talk a lot about hunters, farmers and indigenous communities. What I would like the member for Essex to do, for the benefit of members in this House, is name a specific rifle or shotgun that would be prohibited as a result of Bill C-21, because when I read the bill that has been reported back to the House, it specifically makes mention of something that has been “designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this [bill] comes into force”.

Does the member have a specific make or model that would actually be banned by the bill? I would like him to stay away from anything the government currently has in its power under the Criminal Code, because it is a completely separate issue, the order in council. What under Bill C-21 would be banned by it?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we would never have done is introduce Bill C-21 to begin with, because we know it is going to do absolutely nothing to curb violence. What Conservatives would have done is invest in protecting our borders and invest in our police forces to ensure that we never got to this point to begin with.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will ask my Conservative colleague a simple question.

If the Conservatives were to form government, would they scrap Bill C-21 on firearms?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on an issue that is, quite frankly, very near and dear to my heart. It is near and dear because before Grandpa Jack passed away, I got to hunt with him for many years for deer on, ironically, Manitoulin Island. I am very blessed to still have the opportunity to meet my father at 4:30 in the morning at his house to go chase wild turkeys with my uncle Tom. I guess it is really near and dear to my heart because I am hoping that my grandson Levi, who just turned two years old a couple days ago, will have the same opportunity to enjoy the outdoors with his “Pip”, which is me.

Today, I stand in solidarity with law-abiding gun owners across Canada. For generations, my family has been hunters. My dad got his first gun at the age of five. He, as I did, grew up on a farm. Most farmers owned guns and most family members of the household learned how to use them. Besides supplementing their food supply, farmers used guns to keep predators from their livestock. From one generation to another, each was taught how to handle a gun safely and responsibly.

My dad passed his knowledge and love of hunting to me and my two brothers. Traditions are important. We need look no further than to first nations that support these very same traditions. Hunters today still eat what they hunt and share with their wild-game-loving neighbours, just as I did Saturday night at the Gosfield North Sportsmen club's wild game dinner back in my riding.

Hunters respect nature. We are the original conservationists. We hunt according to seasons, designed to cull the herds, to curtail the behaviours of predators such as coyotes and to preserve wildlife.

Prior to my election as the member of Parliament for Essex, I was an outfitter operating in the Far North. I had the honour and pleasure of working with many first nations guides. Camps like mine, scattered across Canada's vast terrain, help preserve a traditional way of life. We bring resources and jobs to the local communities.

Interestingly enough, my riding of Essex is home to the Jack Miner Migratory Bird Foundation. Jack Miner was an avid outdoorsman and hunter who founded a sanctuary for the conservation of migrating geese and wild ducks. I suppose I could dedicate this entire speech to his list of achievements, but suffice to say, he became world-renowned. As the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau said of him, “Jack Miner, with his vision and determination is largely responsible for those conservation measures in existence today.”

As I said previously, hunters are the original conservationists. They are also law-abiding citizens. Every gun owner in Canada has to go through rigorous certification and training. Our guns are stored under lock and key. We hone our skills at licensed shooting ranges, and we transport our guns in the prescribed way.

Our government knows that the smuggling of illegal guns across the U.S. border is the true source of gun violence in Canada, yet no matter the facts, law-abiding gun owners are the ones negatively impacted by this new proposed legislation. Why is that? Is it ignorance? Is it government overreach? Is it virtue signalling to their voter base? Is it all of the above?

Sadly, the proposed new gun law restrictions are based on emotion, not on facts. Bill C-21 is divisive. It pits rural Canadians against urban Canadians. It serves no practical purpose because it ignores the real source of gun violence. It trifles over types of guns, which only serves to show how profoundly uninformed the government truly is.

Bill C-21 inexplicably also captured, or had the potential to capture, the airsoft and paintball industries in its net, thus jeopardizing these recreational activities and the businesses that go along with them. It is often hard to relate to something that one is indifferent to. However, beyond curtailing our own passions and pursuits is something more fundamental: the erosion of our charter rights and freedoms under the guise of public safety.

Law-abiding gun owners are the low-hanging fruit for the government's obsession with exercising more and more control over the lives of Canadians. Bill C-21 exploits the fears and emotions of Canadians without any bearing on the facts. It is yet another in a long line of such laws that represent a slow and steady erosion of a gun owner's charter rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. My hope is to cast Bill C-21 in a light that even Canadians who are not recreational gun owners could find a point of agreement on regarding what the government should do and, equally importantly, should not do to address gun crime.

Canada is a democracy. The people elect their government, and the government serves the people. The Constitution of Canada is based on the rule of law. As long as citizens are obeying the laws of the land, they are to be free to go about their daily lives. For the government's part, those we elect to govern us are to only pass laws that are necessary and beneficial.

Furthermore, the onus is on the government to prove that any restrictions on a citizen's liberty are necessary and beneficial. Every law that is restrictive in its nature must be thoroughly scrutinized, and we must make a compelling case for its justification. There should be no benefit of the doubt, no ignorance masquerading as facts, no cynical appeal to emotion.

Our Constitution contains the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What happens when our laws become unjust, as Bill C-21 is? Even more alarming, what happens next? Will this open the floodgates? Is the real goal to end gun ownership entirely? The fact is that those who commit violent crimes using a gun do not obey the law, any law, no matter how restrictive. They always find an illegal way to acquire firearms, chiefly by smuggling. The government knows that.

To my point about the need for balance to ensure that laws are just, when regulations become too restrictive for the law-abiding and enforcement too lax for the criminals, the law becomes unjust. That is exactly what has happened with firearms owners in Canada.

However, this will not end with firearms owners. A government's appetite for control is only whetted by each new measure of control it seizes from its citizens. The only ones who can curb this appetite are the citizens themselves. Maybe hunting is not someone's thing, but they should be concerned nevertheless.

We have seen what the government does with emergency powers under the Quarantine Act. Three weeks into the pandemic, while Parliament's sole focus was providing families and businesses the income support they needed, the Liberal government sought powers that would have given it unfettered control of the public purse until the end of December 2021. The Conservatives fought back then, forced their hand and have remained vigilant since.

Since then, the Liberals have resisted accountability, rushed programs through Parliament and issued an order in council on gun control, which is the basis for Bill C-21. When Parliament finally returned to its full function after months of being shuttered, the Liberals gave us the WE scandal, ethics committee filibusters and then prorogation to avoid scrutiny. The government has proven itself incompetent, unaccountable, unethical and power hungry time and time again to advance an ideological agenda propped up by its informal coalition partners, the NDP.

Recreational gun owners are being scapegoated. I can assure members that it will not end with law-abiding gun owners. The government's sole focus should be an economic recovery plan and another to reopen our society, all rights restored.

To summarize my key points in closing, first, law-abiding gun owners are not the source of gun violence and should not be the government's scapegoats. Second, the government needs to focus on stopping the trafficking of illegal guns across the border. Last, let us uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cast this bill and every bill in this House in its bright light.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague. He knows how the study of Bill C‑21 went in committee. He was there. He understands the concept of a consequential amendment. There were several of them for the government's ghost guns amendments. There were some on my amendment for the magazines. A valid possession and acquisition licence is now required for buying a magazine and ammunition. I was very pleased to see that there was unanimity on this. The Conservative Party was in favour of this measure. It is a good measure.

That is how it was, except for a consequential amendment. At some point, my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe got carried away and said that it made no sense to stop a hunter who is getting ready to hunt a rare bird, if his licence is not valid because he is missing a magazine. The official who was there gently reminded him that if the licence is not valid, he could not go hunting, he could not use his gun. Despite that, the Conservatives voted against this amendment.

I would like my colleague to explain why.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak to legislation, which, in this circumstance, is flawed, and to defend the people in my riding and across the country who believe the same thing.

The Liberals and the NDP missed the mark on Bill C-21 right from the very beginning. They should have spent their time focused on criminals and ending the revolving door of justice. Instead, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc turned their backs on hunters, sport shooters and law-abiding firearm owners, and insisted on steamrolling the democratic process. Democracy thrives on debate and discussion, on the exchanges of ideas and the ability of all parliamentarians to have their say, even if other parliamentarians do not want to hear it. If government members do not want to hear me in committee, they are going to hear me now.

This legislation would result in the freeze of lawfully owned handguns and a ban on many firearms used for hunting and sport shooting. It would target law-abiding firearm owners across the country, not criminals. That is the issue. I have been actively and loudly opposed to Bill C-21, which started, as I said, as the Liberal government's proposed legislation to ban handguns. Based on my experience in policing, I can confidently say it is a deeply flawed and misguided piece of legislation. One of the main reasons I oppose the bill is that it is based on a false Liberal premise that a ban on handguns is necessary to reduce gun violence in Canada, but the evidence clearly shows that law-abiding firearm owners are not and have never been the cause of gun violence in this country. In fact, almost all gun crimes are committed by criminals who use illegal firearms that have been smuggled in from the United States.

When it was debated in the House, Bill C-21 did not include any restrictions, potential restrictions or even the mention of long guns, only handguns. However, at committee, the government decided to introduce amendments known as G-4 and G-46, completely out of scope for the bill's original intent. The amendments were terrible and were focused squarely on hunters and legal, law-abiding firearm owners. Their implementation would have been useless to prevent gun crime, and did not include any prior consultations of any kind. We all know what happened next. The push-back from Canadians and the Conservatives overwhelmed the Liberals, who were then forced to withdraw these amendments. How did that occur? It was because the democratic process was allowed to occur. The committee was able to do its work on behalf of all Canadians. Committees are supposed to debate, hear from witnesses, weed out bad ideas and come to common-sense decisions. We would have had the chance to do just that, and do it again with the rest of Bill C-21, if the government truly valued democracy.

Furthermore, during the questioning of government witnesses on these amendments, it was identified that the decision to make these changes was made at a political level. That means that it was not recommended by bureaucrats or policy specialists. This is a clear indication that the Liberal Party is more interested in scoring political points than in implementing effective policies to reduce gun violence. This is not how a democracy is supposed to work. We need to get back to the principles of parliamentary democracy, where every voice is heard, every opinion is considered and every decision is made with the best interests of Canadians at heart.

However, this is not just about principles or the Liberals' lack of them when it comes to democracy. It is also about the impact that this legislation would have on law-abiding firearm owners across the country. These are individuals who have followed the rules, who have gone through the necessary background checks and training and who have been responsible stewards of their firearms, but instead of focusing on criminals and illegal firearms, the Liberal government is targeting law-abiding firearm owners, threatening their ability to hunt, sport shoot and lawfully own firearms.

What may be lost in some of the speeches today is that Bill C-21 is a legislative mess. It is filled with large legislative changes, and introduces items like red-flag laws that would have negative impacts on those seeking assistance to escape from an abusive partner, for example. As PolySeSouvient put it on Twitter, “Despite opposition from coalition of women’s groups, @ndp...supports @liberal_party ex-parte/red flag measure inviting victims to go to court instead of police doing their job. @BlocQuebecois & @CPC_HQ rightly vote against.” These red-flag measures completely miss the mark on improving public safety and actually put victims at greater risk. Over 20 women's groups have reached out to the government and told it to stop. It refused and did not listen.

Bill C-21 makes up words like “military-style assault weapon” without definition, which the chief firearms officer of Alberta agrees is absolutely ludicrous. The Minister of Public Safety testified that he was relying on the committee to come up with a definition to the senseless, uneducated use of that term. The bill speaks of the creation of a Canadian firearms advisory committee that is supposed to provide pragmatic advice on Canadian firearm classifications and regulations. This is just another nifty clause in Bill C-21 that we had five minutes to debate. Just who would sit on this new committee? Would it be gunsmiths, firearm experts and chief firearm officers from across the country, or would it be the well-connected friends of the Liberals and their social justice lawyers who know nothing about firearms, who do not understand the traditions of hunting and sport shooting, have never received PAL or RPAL training, and simply do the bidding of the Liberals?

These are legitimate concerns, but instead of proper debate, we had only minutes. It is simply unacceptable. It is an assault on the values and traditions that have made Canada the great country it is today, and it is a betrayal of the trust Canadians have placed in their elected representatives to uphold the democratic process. The government should work with stakeholders and experts in the firearms community to develop effective policies that actually protect Canadians while respecting their differences of opinion and traditional lifestyles. Instead of working with stakeholders and experts, the Liberal government used a programming motion to fast-track legislation that would have serious consequences for law-abiding firearm owners. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. Democracy, including parliamentary committees and the legislative process, is supposed to be messy. It is non-linear. Sometimes governments do not get the results they want, but MPs should always have the opportunity to advocate and fight on behalf of their constituents.

Conservatives stand with law-abiding firearm owners, demanding they be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. We demand that the government focus on real solutions to the issue of illegal firearms rather than targeting law-abiding Canadians who have done nothing wrong and we demand that our democracy be respected, that our voices be heard and that our elected representatives be held accountable for their actions. As Conservatives, we believe the government should be accountable to the people. That includes taking the time to fully debate and scrutinize legislation. We are not against progress, but we are against rushing through legislation without the proper scrutiny. This is why we will continue to fight for law-abiding firearm owners, and we will continue to oppose any government that uses programming motions to rush through legislation without proper scrutiny. The use of programming motions is a threat to our democracy. Conservatives support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. When we form government, creating effective policies to reduce gun violence will be a priority. Our focus will be bringing back serious sentences for repeat offenders, which were repealed by the Liberals, and reversing the government's revolving door of justice. We will invest in policing and our secure border, rather than spending billions of dollars confiscating firearms from law-abiding Canadians.

Bill C-21 has missed the mark and is simply political rhetoric. The NDP and the Liberals have steamrolled democracy, and if Bill C-21 passes at report stage or third reading, we too will have failed Canadians. My hope is that the other place will do its job well, scrutinize this bill fully and return it to the House with the many amendments it requires, or gut it completely.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean is clearly a team player. He is defending his colleague on this.

However, I want to make one thing clear. The Bloc Québécois went and did its job because it knew it was going to lose votes in the regions and it would not get re-elected. That is why the Bloc members ended up doing their work. In reality, they thought that Bill C-21 did not go far enough, and they do not want anything to do with firearms.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, at first, she fully supported Bill C-21. She even felt that Bill C-21 did not go far enough.

Then, at some point, she saw people everywhere on social media saying that the bill had missed the mark and that it would be dangerous for hunters. That struck fear in the hearts of the Bloc Québécois, and because of pressure from the Conservatives, the Bloc was forced to sit down with the NDP and the Liberals to get back to work.

That is why we, Conservatives, will always be there to stand up for hunters and sport shooters when the other parties want nothing to do with them.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague says that Bill C‑21 is the biggest attack on Canadian hunters ever. Unfortunately, I do not know if he has read the bill as amended in committee last week, but no hunting weapons will be prohibited if this bill is passed. The new definition of prohibited weapons is prospective. It will apply to future weapons, ones that do not yet exist. I do not know why some people are still trying to scare hunters.

My colleague also said that mass murderers in Canada do not use hunting rifles, that they do not use them in shooting sprees. I would remind him that the SKS, which I am sure he is familiar with, is widely used in Canada for hunting. It is especially popular in indigenous communities because it is affordable. I would respectfully remind him that an SKS was recently used to kill two Ontario police officers.

Perhaps we should stop scaring hunters. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, hunting rifles are not in Bill C‑21.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, many hunters in my riding are very nervous about Bill C-21. Their concerns are not unfounded. Bill C‑21 is the biggest attack on hunting rifles in the history of Canada.

Hunting is part of Quebec's ancestral traditions. In our province, hunting is an important cultural and economic activity. During the 2021-22 hunting season, 563,228 hunting licences were sold in Quebec. That is over half a million licences. Nevertheless, under the guise of public safety, the government is going to use Bill C-21 to ban a wide variety of hunting rifles and shotguns, even though they are essential hunting tools.

Violent crime involving rifles or shotguns represents 0.47% of all violent crime. Of course, some people will say that that is too much. However, the fact remains that it is a tiny percentage. The hunting rifles that the government wants to ban are used not only for an important economic activity for Quebec and Canada, but also as tools for farmers to protect their herds from wild animals, for example. Hunting rifles are not responsible for the mass killings in urban centres. We know all that. Do the Liberals really think that a hunter from Saguenay is responsible for the shootings in downtown Montreal?

When we were seized with the first version of Bill C‑21, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were forced to back down under pressure from the Conservatives. This proves that those political parties do not know how things work in the regions. We have long known that the Bloc Québécois is no longer a party of the regions.

Everyone knows that illegal gun trafficking at the border is a problem. Our borders are basically a sieve for illegal guns. We need more monitoring and more resources at the borders to deal with the trafficking. No one believes that going after legitimate gun owners is going to reduce violent crime across the country. It is just another Liberal plan to once again divide Canadians. The solution to fighting violent crime is regulation, not a blanket ban on hunting rifles.

Speaking of violent crime, it has increased by 32% since the Liberals took office, and gang-related murders have increased by 92%. Who is paying the price for the Liberals' incompetence and their abysmal failure on public safety? It is our hunters, our farmers and our indigenous people. There is no reason to attack Quebec and Canadian hunters. The government is giving in to lobby groups that condemn all guns as assault weapons, when in fact many are guns used for hunting.

It is clear to me that the Liberal government is once again way off base. It is out of touch with the Canadian reality outside the major urban centres. Perhaps it would be good for Liberal ministers to go and visit the regions. I even invite them to come to my riding. We will go out and meet some hunters. I hope they will gain a better understanding of the Canadian reality.

My leader and the Conservative Party's Quebec lieutenant came to Saguenay last month. We held a round table with hunting groups, and many people were in attendance. Do members know what they all had in common? They were all very concerned about Bill C-21. However, we reassured them by confirming that the three other political parties in the House that were 100% in favour of Bill C-21 at the start had taken a step back and reconsidered because of us, the Conservatives. We will always be there to defend their interests, and that is what we are doing today.

One of the people we met at a round table was Stéphane Brassard, a retired police officer and now a member of the Saguenay hunting federation. He spent his entire life chasing criminals, but now he is being made to feel like one. His only crime is that he is a hunter and sport shooter.

We also met Marie Line Tremblay, leader of Poule des Bois, a group of women who like to hunt. She told us it is primarily a social group that gives women a chance to get together and talk about their lives and their interests as hunters. While this activity might not seem criminal to most, the Liberals see things differently.

Many controlled harvesting zones in my region, known as ZECs, depend on these weapons for hunting. They include the Association des sauvaginiers du Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean and the Club de tir le faucon, not to mention sport shooters and biathletes in training. Major businesses also depend on the hunting industry, like Chasse et pêche Chicoutimi.

Did anyone give a second thought to these organizations and businesses? What kind of compensation is the government prepared to pay? The whole thing amounts to a lot of trouble for very little return.

I will finish my speech with a message of hope to reassure all hunters and farmers in the country that the Conservatives are here to defend them. A Conservative government will invest in law enforcement and make our border safer and more secure. We will use common-sense policies to deal with criminals, instead of spending billions of dollars taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. The Liberals must end their crusade against hunters and leave them alone.

Bill C‑21 does not address crime in Montreal. It attacks ordinary people who hunt in Quebec. I know very well that the Liberals voter base is in major cities. Ultimately, they know perfectly well that Bill C‑21 will not reduce gun crime. This is a purely ideological bill. That is why I strongly oppose it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, we saw what the Liberals did just before Christmas. They introduced an amendment that had hundreds of hunting rifles on it. Now, that amendment was pulled back and has been removed from the bill, but the Liberals were caught with their hand in the cookie jar. We know what their intention is. It is to take away hunting rifles from law-abiding firearms owners in this country. Bill C-21 would be just one step in that direction.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague talk about hunters, farmers and indigenous communities. For the House's benefit, could he name a specific rifle or shotgun that would now be prohibited because of Bill C-21? The way I read the bill, it references any rifle or shotgun that is manufactured on or after the day on which the bill comes into force. If he is going to go on about the Canadian firearms advisory committee, I would remind him that the power to reclassify firearms already exists under the Criminal Code, and it is completely separate from Bill C-21.

Can the member enlighten the House on a specific rifle or shotgun that would be affected by Bill C-21? I await his answer.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague closed his speech by saying that Bill C-21 does absolutely nothing to keep our communities safe.

I am not sure whether he read or received the memo indicating that, in parliamentary committee, his Conservative Party colleagues voted for all the government's amendments related to ghost guns. This is a fairly new phenomenon in Canada. The police have asked us to do something about it, and they support what we came up with. It will certainly improve gun control in Canada.

The Conservatives also voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois amendments on cartridge magazines. A valid licence will now be required to purchase a magazine. This was done for Danforth Families for Safe Communities. I am not sure whether the member is aware, but when a gunman went on a shooting spree on the Danforth in 2018, he was using a gun he had stolen, but he bought a magazine legally, because no licence was needed.

His party voted in favour of these amendments, which will help improve public safety in Canada. That is just a comment.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-21 does not say anything about the use of firearms. In fact, it is about writing lists of firearms, defining which firearms are able to be owned in Canada or are not able to be owned in Canada.

In the closing days of Parliament just before Christmas, when no one was paying attention, the Liberals brought in an amendment with a list of 1,500 firearms. Many of those are used for hunting. When the Liberals were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they denied that they have been going after law-abiding hunting rifles, when that is indeed what they were doing.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to clarify for the hon. member that Bill C-21 respects sport shooters, gun owners, hunters and fishers right across the country.

The purpose of Bill C-21 is to address the problematic use of firearms and to reduce violence, which is not always about crime. Sometimes it is domestic violence, suicide, and so forth. Bill C-21 takes a great stab at doing that. It is not perfect, but it is going in a good direction.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-21 is a terrible bill that would do nothing to enhance public safety in this country. It is a confiscation of legal firearms that have been owned for generations in this country.

Firearm ownership is a heritage and a tradition that I am hoping to pass on to my children. I am excited to pass it on to my children. I know that they will be law-abiding and responsible firearms owners. I hope that tradition of firearms ownership would be something that is part of our Canadian heritage and part of the Canadian identity going forward.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise again to continue speaking to Bill C-21.

I mentioned before that I do not think there could be any more stark a contrast between Conservatives and all the other parties in the House, as Conservatives are the only ones who will defend the rights of law-abiding firearm owners in this country. I said earlier, and I have said many times in this debate about Bill C-21, that Liberals and the members of all the other parties seem dedicated to eliminating firearm ownership in this country by one small cut after another, particularly hunting rifles.

We have been saying that the Liberals have been going after Canadians' hunting rifles, which the Liberals have adamantly denied. Then, just before Christmas, when nobody was working and nobody was watching, the Liberals introduced an amendment to Bill C-21 that would have, in fact, banned many hunting rifles in Canada.

The Liberals were caught with that, so they repealed, or pulled back, that amendment. It is no longer a part of this bill. The Liberals have been quick to point that out, but we know that their true intention is to ensure that firearm ownership is onerous, if not outright illegal over time, in Canada. I must say this more often: Only Conservatives will stand up for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners in Canada.

It was fascinating to watch the NDP members do somersaults on this particular bill. Initially, the New Democrats were supportive of the amendment, and then they were not supportive of the amendment. It took them some time to come to this position, so we are happy to see that they came to, saying that they did not support that amendment, but here we are.

Again, members might be wondering what is the major difference between Conservatives and Liberals when it comes to this particular bill. It goes back to the idea of right and wrong, good and evil, and the fact that Conservatives believe that good and evil live inside of everyone. The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of humankind. It is not instruments that are inherently evil, but it is the actions or thoughts of humanity that can be evil. That is what we need to deal with in this.

We have seen that the Liberals, time and again, every time there is a tragedy that involves firearms in this country, right away want to ban firearms, yet when it comes to treating hardened or violent criminals in this country, they introduce bills, such as Bill C-75, that reverse the onus on bail, let violent criminals out of jail quicker and reduce minimum sentences. They talk about maximum sentences, but one of the things we need in this country are minimum sentences, where people who do the crime would go to jail for a minimum amount of time. Over and over again, we have seen the government remove those minimum sentences, and some of those minimum sentences were brought in by previous Liberal governments in the 1990s. The Chrétien Liberals brought in these minimum sentences. It is only now that the current Liberal government removed them with Bill C-75.

We see that there is a misunderstanding of where evil comes from. Evil does not come from instruments. It does not come from inanimate objects. It comes from human beings who enact evil. The Christian world view talks about sin and that there is a missing of the mark, a right way to live and a wrong way to live. That is what we are living with when it comes to violent criminals who are using firearms in terrible ways.

Firearms have been in long-standing use in Canada. I have to say that they are a big part of our history and a big part of our heritage. Firearm ownership ought to continue to be available to Canadians across the country. I am excited to pass that heritage on to my own children.

Bill C-21 would do nothing to enhance public safety here in Canada, as Canada has some of the most well-regulated firearms—

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking all the firefighters in Alberta. I want to also thank all the communities that have stepped up.

There are fires across northern Alberta. Many communities that I represent are dealing with fires or they are dealing with the evacuees. They have opened their homes and evacuation shelters. They have opened up spaces for pets, horses and livestock from across the area. I want to recognize the Alberta spirit in that. When neighbours are in trouble, other neighbours step up, help out and do whatever is needed.

Members of the legion in Fox Creek have stepped up to feed all the firefighters and first responders, and I thank them for doing that.

I want to thank the Alberta government for being at the ready in the midst of an election to help fight the fires. I want to thank all the Canadian Armed Forces members who are on the ground, doing good work in Alberta and doing all the things necessary to fight these fires.

Like you, Mr. Speaker, I am praying for rain and for the growth of the new grass so we can get out of this fire season and get on with seeding and getting this year's crop in the ground. I note that in most places it is going fairly well, but the fires are definitely putting a damper on it.

My heart goes out to all those families that have lost property, lost their life's work with respect to building up a place, or an acreage or a farm. In some cases, businesses have been lost due to the fire.

I also want to recognize the wildlife officers who are doing yeoman's work in managing the wildlife that is being chased around by these fires as well. Some interesting things have happened with that as well.

My thoughts and prayers are with all those who are dealing with the fires in northern Alberta at the moment, including some of my family members who are on the firefighting crews.

That brings me to the bill at hand, Bill C-21. I do not think there can be any more stark difference with the way the parties have dealt with the bill in the House of Commons. The Conservatives are the only party that stands up for law-abiding firearms owners in our country. The Liberals are fundamentally opposed to firearm ownership. They have basically said that out loud.

We have said that the firearms of hunters and sport shooters must be protected. It is the right of Canadians and it is a big part of our Canadian heritage to own and use firearms. We have been concerned that the Liberals are targeting law-abiding firearms owners, wanting to take away their firearms.

Fundamentally I think Liberals are just opposed to firearm ownership across the board. This goes against all our Canadian heritage and history. We have enjoyed firearm ownership for the entire history of our country. We are not the wild west and we are not the United States. Canada has always had a good regime of firearm ownership.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's work on committee. The Conservatives voted with the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals on almost all the amendments that were brought forward in the marathon sessions last week.

I also appreciate that the member has been the first Conservative to admit that G-4 and G-46, the Liberal amendments that have been part of the Conservative talking points now for months, were actually withdrawn. I appreciate his honesty in admitting that the Conservative talking points were false.

I get calls from Alberta. These are constituents in Alberta ridings who cannot reach their Alberta Conservative MP at all, so they contact me in British Columbia. One of the concerns they raise is about criminal activity and ghost guns. The reality is that Bill C-21 deals with ghost guns in a substantive way.

The member was talking about cracking down on criminals. Criminals use ghost guns. Law enforcement needs this legislation. Why did the Conservatives filibuster it for weeks and weeks?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, particularly when he talked about sport shooting. I really wonder about that.

Clause 43 of Bill C-21 protects sport shooters so that they can continue to practise their hobby. The Conservatives moved Motion No. 12, which seeks to remove this clause that exempts sports shooters and protects them so they can continue to practise their hobby. I am wondering about the consistency of saying that they are not protected while removing the very clause that protects them.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, another reason why these red and yellow flag laws are so unnecessary is because police have already been clear that they have have the authority without a warrant to act immediately to seize firearms if they determine there is a risk. Canada already has red and yellow flag laws. I even read recently about a gentleman in the Ottawa area who has hunted his entire life. However, during the pandemic, sadly, his wife and a sibling died, and the mental toll caused him to check into a local hospital. While he presented no threat, his firearms were seized proactively. He had to go to court and convince a judge that he should be allowed to have them back, and the judge sided with him. Clearly, we already have yellow flag laws in existence in Canada, as this case demonstrates.

Now, it should go without saying that Canada is not the United States. While going to court to seize firearms may be necessary in the United States, it is not the case in Canada. As I said before, in Canada when there is a threat, the police have the authority to act immediately without a warrant to secure firearms. Unfortunately, these Liberals will spend more time role-playing as members of the U.S. Congress rather than addressing the distinct issues that exist here in Canada.

Finally, and what I see as the clearest demonstration of the punitive nature of Bill C-21, is the exemption for Olympic sport shooters. Groups like the International Practical Shooting Confederation, IPSC, came to committee to plead for an exemption for their sport, but they were rejected by the Liberals. There has been no evidence presented at committee that IPSC, cowboy-action shooting or any other high-level sport shooting discipline posed any risk to public safety, and yet they were treated with utter contempt by the Liberal Party.

Now, the pressure is so high in the Liberal caucus to shut down any shooting sport in Canada that they even tried to silence one of their own members at committee who expressed concerns about this heavy-handed ban. The MP for Kings—Hants raised a very good point about a constituent who competed internationally with IPSC, and through no fault of his own, his sporting firearm was lost by Air Canada. Now, because of Bill C-21, he would never be able to pursue his passion again. Even in countries like the United Kingdom, where handguns are completely banned, there are exemptions for IPSC and sport shooting.

The Liberals provided no public safety justification for this move. They have determined that their objective is to eliminate all legal handgun ownership in Canada, and they could not allow an IPSC exemption, because it would allow a small group of people to continue pursuing their passion, which brings me to the real reason Bill C-21 was created.

The Liberals can try and point to raising maximum penalties for smugglers, but this is just a fig leaf to cover the real purpose of the bill. The real purpose of the bill is the sterilization of the culture of legal sport shooting in Canada. It is well known in the firearms community that ranges are funded by dues-paying members who are required by legislation to be a range member as a condition of a restricted licence. Without any new licence-holders, the income for gun ranges will dry up, leading to the closure of almost every gun range in Canada. The prevention of any sport shooting exemption beyond Olympic-level sports ensures that only a very elite few, we are talking about maybe a couple of people, would be able to legally acquire a handgun in Canada.

I am also very concerned about the Liberals' Canadian firearms advisory committee. It appears to me that this advisory committee would not be very independent and that the Liberals have already prejudged what kinds of firearms will be banned, including many commonly used hunting rifles. The effect of this will reverberate throughout the country as firearms retailers shut down, trade shows close shop and sport shooting clubs close due to a lack of members. That is the Liberal agenda in black and white: the wholesale elimination of an entire part of our country's culture and heritage, and passions enjoyed by millions of Canadians through generations. Maybe if there were a public safety reason for all of this we could do a cost-benefit analysis, but there was no evidence provided, and there is no truth to the claims that this will improve public safety.

This legislation demonizes a group of law-abiding Canadians for the political benefit of the Liberal Party. It provides a convenient distraction from the abject failure of Liberal ideology to keep our communities safe. After all, has the country ever become safer since Bill C-71 has been implemented, or the May 2020 OIC or since the handgun freeze has come in? Has it stopped handgun violence in our streets? Absolutely not. This country has only descended further into violence and lawlessness.

NDP members had an opportunity to take a stand on the side of hunters and sport shooters and instead they sold out. They would not support Conservative amendments to ensure exemptions for sport shooters and hunters. Instead, they chose to prop up the Liberal government. The fact is, they had the support. We could have united together. I have been getting calls in my office from people who live in the riding of Edmonton Griesbach, because they cannot get through to their NDP MP to tell him how upset they are with the NDP stance on the bill.

The Conservatives will always stand up for law-abiding firearms owners. We are going to stand up against this punitive Bill C-21 legislation, which would do nothing to improve public safety in our country.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-21, a piece of legislation that I have engaged with very closely over the last seven months as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

From my many months of working on the bill, I can only conclude that Bill C-21 is not about public safety. If it was about public safety, the bill would have sought to deal with the disastrous bail and parole policies, which have led to many violent repeat offenders being released back onto our streets to commit more acts of violence. Unfortunately, it did not.

What Bill C-21 is really about is politics. It is about pitting one group of Canadians against another through fear, misleading policies and willful ignorance about the reality of lawful firearms ownership in this country.

Canada is a peaceful country. Since the 1970s, Canada has experienced a significant reduction in violent crime. Only the past eight years of the current Liberal government have broken that long-standing trend, with a staggering 32% increase in violent crime since 2015. Unfortunately, instead of addressing this staggering 32% increase, the Liberals have chosen to target hunters and sport shooters instead.

Now, Statistics Canada has released very interesting data on firearms and violent crime. A report released this past December dealt specifically with violent crime in Canada involving firearms in 2021. The data showed that of all instances of violent crimes recorded in Canada, a rifle or shotgun was only present in 0.47% of cases, less than half a per cent. Out of this 0.47% it is not clear how many of them could be classified as so-called "assault-style firearms". The number could be very close to zero, but it is likely less than that 0.47% that includes all rifles and shotguns.

Bill C-21 is not public safety legislation. The amendments that define an assault-style rifle do not address the firearms that are being commonly used by criminals. The guns being used by criminals are primarily smuggled illegal handguns and high-capacity magazine weapons that are already illegal in Canada. While Bill C-21 would formalize the so-called “handgun freeze” that prevents any new registration certificates for handguns, it is quite obvious that the handguns being used by criminals to commit violence in our streets are not registered firearms. This so-called “freeze” does nothing to stop the criminals; it only prevents law-abiding people from owning a handgun. When I asked the officials at committee to provide evidence to demonstrate that this handgun freeze would reduce violent crime, they could not provide any evidence.

Now, the Liberals have been clear that their end goal is to eliminate legal ownership of guns in Canada. Other than possibly reducing instances of legal guns being stolen or straw purchased, which is extremely rare for obvious reasons, this would do nothing to address the real problems, which are smuggled handguns and the emergence of ghost guns.

There was agreement at committee that the issue of ghost guns needs to be dealt with, and that is why Conservatives supported multiple amendments that would make it an offence to distribute instructions to manufacture ghost guns with the intent to produce illegal firearms. We also supported adding regulations and penalties regarding essential firearms parts, which can be used to assemble ghost guns. Unfortunately, despite the best intentions, I fear these policies would do little to deter those who plan to use this emerging technology for criminal purposes. After all, anyone who is in illegal possession of one of these ghost guns is already in contravention of the Criminal Code. Additional charges for the possession of schematics or essential firearms components are unlikely to dissuade criminals who are already committing a crime.

Bill C-21 is also not about public safety, because the so-called “yellow and red flag laws” are unnecessary and potentially harmful to victims. In fact, the Liberals and the NDP both rammed through these so-called “red flag laws” over the very strong opposition of women's groups, which rightfully pointed out that forcing women to go to court to obtain an order to seize firearms is not practical, nor is it safe. In fact I received a very kind message from one of these advocacy groups thanking Conservatives for voting for what, in their words, was their most important amendment, and they noted that the Liberals voted against this amendment.

Police have already been clear that they—

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of my constituents of Niagara West once again. I never take this privilege for granted and I always want to thank them for their trust in me.

This time I rise to relay my constituents' concerns on the Liberal government bill, Bill C-21. My office received hundreds of regular mail, phone calls and emails disagreeing with what this bill would do. Since its introduction, Bill C-21 has had a long journey. I want to assure folks in my riding who are watching today that I have fought against this bill every step of the way.

Let me start by acknowledging something that always comes up in conversations around firearms, perhaps rightly so. Yes, gun crime in Canada is a real problem, but let us not forget that gun crime in Canada is almost always committed with illegal guns, trafficked and smuggled over the border from the United States. Last month, a police operation in Toronto seized 173 firearms and over 1,400 rounds of ammunition. All of that was smuggled across the border.

Since the Liberals were elected in 2015, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related murders have doubled. Let us contrast that with the previous Conservative government, which saw a record 33% drop in gun crimes. That is a huge difference and a huge difference in approaches. Today, in cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, there is a real and concerning gang presence.

Criminals and their illegal guns put Canadians at risk every single day. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, yet somehow the Prime Minister cannot seem to figure it out or does not want to. In fact, the government is making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5, and made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75. On top of everything, the Liberals continue to fail to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border.

We also need to acknowledge that legal firearms in Canada are very tightly regulated. The process to obtain one is long and can take several months. Someone who wants to obtain a firearm legally must take safety courses, exams and go through rigorous background checks. After the process is complete, the firearm can only be used at a range and to hunt.

We would think that with all these safety precautions, legal gun owners would be the least of the government's worry. However, they are not. The government seems to think that gang members are attending firearms safety classes and studying diligently for their exams so they can go hunting or shooting on the range after.

The logic of the Liberals use on legal firearm owners is mind-boggling. It does not seem like they understand a simple fact, which I will repeat. The overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes are smuggled into Canada through the U.S. border and are obtained illegally.

Instead of addressing the root cause of gun crime, the Prime Minister takes the easy route and groups our law-abiding gun-owning grandpas with some of Canada's worst criminals. While the government attacks hunters and sport shooters, criminals and gang members stock up on guns and continue to use them to cause mayhem on our streets. For some reason, the government believes that taking away legal guns will solve crimes committed by illegal guns.

Over eight long years of the tired government, it seems the Prime Minister just cannot stop taking things for himself. He wants to take Canadians' money by skyrocketing taxes, their freedoms and, now, their legal firearms.

Back in 2020, the then Minister of Public Safety's office said the government would not target guns designed for hunting. In 2023, it has done exactly the opposite. In 2020, it also said it would treat law-abiding gun owners with fairness and respect. In 2023, that could not be further from the truth.

For millions of Canadians, legal firearms ownership is a way of life. It is a culture that feeds families and ties communities together.

For example, sport shooting clubs in my riding and across the country provide opportunities for people to learn about firearms. They train and learn how to use them safely and responsibly. These clubs are not a hub for criminal activity, but rather they give both recreation and education to folks who are interested in hunting or sports shooting.

For hunters, guns are not just a tool of recreation, but also a tool with which they feed their families. For millions of Canadians, hunting is a means to feed their family, bond with others and connect with their culture. Humans have lived off the land by hunting for many generations, but the Prime Minister wants to end this lifestyle. Hunters, farmers, sport shooters, indigenous people and so many others all use their firearms for benefit, yet the the government seems to think they are one of Canada's biggest threats.

As I mentioned earlier, I have received an incredible volume of correspondence from constituents who are all against this bill. These are usually folks who acknowledge the risk illegal and smuggled firearms pose to the safety of our communities. However, they are also very clear that legal gun ownership is not the issue. These folks are also confused as to why they are being targeted and are worried their legally obtained hunting rifles will be taken away.

As we heard throughout the day, the opposition to this misguided bill is not just in my riding but also across the country, and even in some ridings of the Liberal Party. Even some NDP members oppose it. However, do they admit that anymore? They will need to answer to their constituents when they return to their ridings. I would love to hear the reasons they will give their constituents. More than likely it will just be Liberal talking points.

In the face of the strong opposition to the bill, the Prime Minister is trying to do everything he can to ram this bill through Parliament. He knows Canadians are against it. In my view, I think he is just desperate to make it seem like he is in control. It is a destructive pattern I have noticed over the last eight years of trying to gain control over the lives of Canadians, while simultaneously infringing on some of their most basic freedoms.

This is where I will repeat something I said many times in this place, especially in the last three years, which is to let folks live their lives. Leave them alone. At this point, the Liberals have pushed and rushed Bill C-21 through committee because they do not want to hear some of the views and opinions of hunters, farmers and indigenous people. The government knows what committee witnesses will say about the bill.

However, this is not happening just in committee. The Liberals are rushing Bill C-21 through the House, to have as little debate as possible here as well. What is even more interesting is their ever-changing terminology. To dodge scrutiny, they are redefining Bill C-21 as a ban on “assault-style” firearms when they are just trying to take the firearms away from law-abiding gun owners. It is that simple.

The government is trying to make it seem as if this new definition will save hunters and legal gun owners. Instead, all this definition does is give the Liberals more time to reapproach the issue in the fall and come up with another ill-defined and ineffective ban. All this definition does is put hunting rifles and shotguns at risk of being confiscated in the future.

I also need to mention that farmers are also deeply affected. Farmers use firearms for various important purposes on the family farm, such as protecting cattle from predators or handling pests. Let us be clear that Bill C-21 is not about stopping criminals and it is not about fighting gang violence. The Prime Minister has already admitted and is on record that he wants to ban legal hunting guns, and he said so himself in an interview on CTV.

This is about the Prime Minister doing everything he can to take more rights away from Canadians. He is not satisfied after three years of wedging, dividing and stigmatizing Canadians at every opportunity possible. If it really were about fighting crime, the Prime Minister would stop removing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. It is that simple. He would stop making it easier for criminals to get bail and get back on the streets. Once again, it is that simple.

Already in 2023, half of the murder suspects in Toronto were out on release. The Liberals try to paint Bill C-21 as being tough on crime. This is ridiculous and they know it. They want the country to believe they are coming in like a knight in shining armour to save the country from an evil dragon, the hunting rifle of one's uncle.

Canadians see this bill exactly for what it is, a fairy tale. Canadians are tired of the government's fairy tales. They are tired of seeing their rights be diminished and stepped on by the power-hungry, overreaching and intrusive government.

Let me share what Bill Baranick, a volunteer firearms safety instructor, said about Bill C-21. Bill lives in my riding and he is also a grape grower. He said, “Bill C-21 appears to be nothing more than a wedge issue to be used in the next election. By banning the sale and transfer of legally owned handguns, entire collections and family heirlooms etc. have zero value now, taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the economy. These firearms cannot be passed down to the next generation or sold. It's a devastating blow to shooting sports in this country as well as affecting thousands of jobs in the firearms industry. C-21 in it's current form needs to be redrafted to be tougher on criminals and addressing root causes of gun violence, and not going after the safest demographic in Canada...legally licensed, daily vetted women and men of the hunting and sport shooting community.”

I am absolutely in when it comes to fighting crime with tough measures. None of us on this side of the House do not support that issue. We very much thing that when it comes to fighting crime we need to have tough measures.

I think I can speak for my Conservative colleagues that we must work together as a country to fight gun violence and work toward safer streets. However, how do we do this? It is simple. We need to do this by tackling illegal guns used in criminal activities, targeting gun smugglers and being tough on gang activity. We must bring back serious sentences for violent gun offenders, while supporting common-sense policies for farmers, sports shooters and indigenous peoples.

What we must not do is take away the rights and freedoms of lawful Canadians. The rights of lawful gun-owning Canadians must be respected.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her speech. That called to me when she said that they listened to people, hunters and so on.

I remember very well that from the beginning, they were in complete agreement on Bill C-21. One of her colleagues was even in favour of amendment G-4 and was very comfortable tabling it. All of a sudden, they turned right around.

What happened for them to, first of all, be in full agreement with the Liberals and the NDP and then, after seeing that there was some grumbling, they went back over their work?

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the decision by her colleague, who was very comfortable with amendment G-4.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was December 6, 1989, at École Polytechnique de Montréal, January 29, 2017, at the Quebec City mosque and so many other dates. Those dates need to resonate with my colleagues when they consider voting on this bill.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-21. We can say without hesitation that the Bloc Québécois's contribution is undoubtedly why this bill is finally acceptable. I would like to note the exceptional work of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, without whom this bill would certainly not have progressed in the same way.

That said, it is far from perfect, as it was initially botched by the government. We can see that, as with Bill C-10, Bill C-11 and so many other bills, the Liberal signature is to introduce flawed bills and be able to brag about having done this and that. In reality, it is others who improve them and deal with the problems and shortcomings of each bill that the government proposes. Bill C‑21 is a flagrant example.

The bill was tabled in May 2020. It was essentially a freeze on handgun acquisitions and a grandfather clause. In that respect, the government did in effect prohibit most models of assault rifles with its order in council on May 1, 2020, which was issued quickly, a short time after the killings in Portapique, Nova Scotia, but several models were not covered, while new models continue to enter the market. Also, the prohibition on May 1, 2020, did not cover all “modern” assault weapons, thus allowing weapons like the very popular SKS, which is frequently used in mass shootings in Canada, to remain legal.

In the briefing to members and political staffers, officials also confirmed that the government planned to amend the bill to add other measures, which was unheard of for a newly tabled bill. There was no rhyme or reason.

In other words, the bill was not at all ready and the government only tabled it to ride the wave of support for gun control following the latest unfortunate shooting. That is called opportunism. I would even add a real lack of desire to be truly effective. In short, the government was not necessarily able to bring forward a fair and reasoned bill, but action was required because it was the right time and looked good. The results are there.

In fall 2022, the government tabled a package of amendments to its own bill. More than 400 pages of amendments were submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, although the studies were already completed. These amendments included new measures to combat ghost weapons, but also a definition of a prohibited assault weapon and a list of more than 300 pages of prohibited weapons.

Here is another demonstration of what the Liberal government has made us accustomed to: anything. These amendments were tabled without explanation, without briefing and without a press scrum. Even Liberal members of the Committee seemed unable to explain these amendments. The various positions of the advocacy groups have become entangled—that is normal, of course—in a mish-mash of various readings and interpretations, most of which were justified or unjustified, since we were in a sort of grey area.

By drawing up this list, the government created a host of ambiguities and possibilities for circumvention, and, at the same time, penalized hunters and airsoft sport shooters. This does not include the weapons market already trying to circumvent the list. The concerns kept growing.

Hunters' fears are a good example. The Bloc Québécois listened to hunters. We therefore proposed reopening the study so that experts could be brought in to testify on the matter of assault weapons. The Bloc Québécois opposed the list in the Criminal Code because it made it needlessly long. The Criminal Code is not a real-time reflection of models of weapons and their classification.

It is my colleague from Avignon—La Métis—Matane—Matapédia who was a guiding light and kept the reason for logic throughout the process. Through pressure from all over, her team's research and her consultations with scientists and advocacy groups, she and the Bloc Québécois research team made a big difference in the study process of this bill.

It makes me very proud, today, to take the floor and re-tell the entire story. The government then tabled a gag order to quickly conclude the study of Bill C-21.

However, the government itself is responsible for the slow progress of Bill C-21. It preferred to bring forward an incomplete bill quickly after the killings rather than take a few more months to table a complete bill.

Despite these shortcomings, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑21. Initially, the bill was criticized by hunters, pro-firearms control groups and air gun enthusiasts. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, it was improved and satisfied most of the groups. Again, the Bloc was proactive and made such fair proposals that they could not be refused.

The government has acted softly for years, leading to gun violence everywhere, particularly in Montreal. Prohibited weapons are circulating illegally. Bill C‑21 is a poultice on a wooden leg, as my father would say. It is not nothing, but it is little, and the time wasted with the parliamentary exercise of cobbling together a badly designed bill does not save time. However, time is running out.

It was a mistake to try to create a bill full of shortcomings, that practically put hunters, sports enthusiasts and killers in the same boat. What a lack of will and respect for the afflicted, the victims, and for the innocent. In fact, the ultimate urgency was to table a bill developed by experts and scientists and improved by consultations with associations and as many representations as needed. The government is proposing quite the contrary, and that is unfortunate.

As usual, the Bloc is being valiant. We have done the work by bypassing and adapting the limitations and mistakes of the government. The next step is urgent. Weapons are flowing into Canada. What will the names of the next victims be? Who will lose a mother, a father, a daughter or a neighbour? What does the Liberal government plan to do to prevent illegal weapons from crossing the border?

I hope it will learn from its mistakes. Above all, I hope that the next steps in the fight against crime will be firm and frank gestures, based on clear legislation and taking into account the realities and needs of organizations that oversee, that work and that intervene in the area of public safety.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to be able to stand in this place and debate the issues that are so important to my constituents and Canadians.

It is interesting. As we enter into debate on this subject, I have heard, today and over the course of the last number of months, an emphasis on a massive disconnect that exists. I have heard this in the previous members' speeches. I have been hearing it in questions and comments. I heard it at committee. I was a regular member of the public safety committee in the previous Parliament, but not in this Parliament. However, I had the chance to participate in some of those meetings.

We are seeing a massive disconnect between rural and urban Canada. There are many Liberals who would try to diminish that and use fanciful language to suggest that they are somehow listening to those voices and whatnot. However, I can say very clearly that when I have canvassed and spoken with many constituents, they feel entirely abandoned by the Liberal government and say that its political and ideological agenda is unfairly targeting them.

We are debating Bill C-21. Many Canadians have followed this debate very closely. It is interesting, because the debate has evolved quite substantially. I am going to go back to 2015; at that time, we had the then leader of the Liberal Party, who is now Prime Minister, making it very clear that he thought that the situation with firearms in Canada was in a good place. He promised not to bring back a gun registry. He was quoted saying that his protection detail used to let him play with their service revolvers and that he had a great deal of respect for those firearms owners.

However, it seems that as the years have gone by, scandals have erupted, and there has been a gradual diminishment of Liberal support from across the country. Thus, the Liberals seem to fall back on an old tactic. When they are failing, they go back to attacking those whom they think they can score political points against.

I would suggest that with the introduction and the amendments that were initially proposed, and now as the Liberals have rammed through this legislation that is supposed to be about firearms and is messaged in the guise of public safety, it is really just an attack. It is an attack from a government that is floundering and needing to change the channel from scandals, mismanagement and where the country is at, because so many Canadians are suffering.

Instead of dealing with the real issues that Canadians are suffering from, the Liberals are saying, “Look over here.” They are simply going to something that they think they can score political points on. That is cheap politics. It increasingly furthers that rural-urban divide that I mentioned. Moreover, when those sorts of games are played, it does not actually create good public policy. We have seen that here.

We have a very large bill with a significant level of complexity, with far more than I would be able to fit in a 10-minute speech. However, while the Liberals say that this is about Canadians' safety and taking guns off the streets, it is ironic that they absolutely fail to acknowledge that the problem is not law-abiding firearms owners. The problem is not those who go through training, who keep up their certification and licensing, and who are legally allowed to own firearms in this country.

There are more than two million firearms owners, many of whom I am proud to represent, coming from a rural area. Those individuals are hunters, sport shooters and farmers. In fact, for many farmers and ranchers, a firearm is a tool. I am not sure the Liberals quite understand this. It is a tool like any other. It is important to acknowledge that.

Yet, we have the Liberals attacking these individuals with this gun-confiscation regime, and they are saying that it is about public safety. The reality is that it does nothing. In fact, when I asked at committee whether some of the policies that had been brought in at a provincial level had resulted in any reductions in crime, the Liberals could not answer those questions.

I think it is ironic and unfortunate that we see the politicization of this issue. We see a Prime Minister who is bogged down by scandal, corruption and mismanagement targeting 2.1 million Canadians for cheap political points. When Canadians can hardly afford to put food on the table, what do the Liberals do? They go back to talking about guns.

However, I want to talk about the public safety issue specifically, because that is a huge issue. We have seen a massive increase in violent crime. We have seen a massive increase in the illegal use of firearms, yet we see how, instead of the Liberals addressing the real root of the problem, they just go after the easy target of law-abiding firearms owners. They target them instead of doing the hard work that is required to deal with smuggled guns, violent criminal behaviour or a broken bail system.

The unfortunate reality is that there are Canadians who are dying as a result of violent crime. There are victims, and it is because of a soft-on-crime agenda that the Liberals refuse to acknowledge as part of the problem. My constituents are sick and tired of it. They see how damaging the soft-on-crime agenda is to the public safety of our entire country, including rural and urban areas and everywhere in between. However, instead of doing anything about it, the Liberals say it is those who are trained and vetted, those who have a check run against them in the police system every single day to ensure that they continue to be allowed to own those firearms.

The fact is that law-abiding firearms owners are some of the least likely individuals in this country to commit a crime. Members from the Liberal Party talk about not wanting to import American-style politics into the debate. It is that party that is playing those sorts of divisive games and trying to throw 2.1 million Canadians under the bus so they can score a few points. Further to that, it was not Conservatives who had a former presidential candidate come and speak to their party convention, it was the Liberals. Since they are spouting off rhetoric about firearms, I would simply ask the question of whether they agree with Hillary Clinton's position on the second amendment, because she is pretty pro-gun compared with some of the things they are saying.

The hypocrisy is rich, and the consequence is that the Liberals' dividing for political gain is putting many of my constituents in an untenable position. I have many constituents who are proud of that rural heritage, that sporting heritage and that conservation heritage. I do not have time to get into the conservation aspect of hunting and how important it is for wildlife management across this country. We see how the Liberals are throwing that away.

I would just note a point I made in committee yesterday. We see a virtual ban on handguns. We see so many firearms, including hunting rifles, that will be confiscated. We see that the Liberals have devastated many small business owners across the country, those who would own gun shops and sporting goods stores. The Liberals are pretty quick to accuse regular, law-abiding Canadians of all the worst possible things, yet even in the bill there is a carve-out for federal police forces.

For example, there is the ability of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to allow its peace officers to carry firearms. Moreover, all of us in this place very much appreciate the good work that our security personnel do around here. They carry guns, and that is okay. We have the RCMP, municipal police forces and provincial police forces; their officers all carry guns, and that is okay. The Liberals are saying that they want the protection but that they do not trust Canadians.

We have here a massive disconnect between how one would actually solve concerns related to public safety and how the Liberals are simply taking an easy path, playing cheap politics and targeting many of my constituents. I would suggest that there is a clear difference in the way Conservatives would approach issues of public safety in this country. There is a political party that will go after those who do not commit the crimes and let those who do commit them back out on the streets, with weak bail and parole systems that are literally seeing people killed. That is not an exaggeration.

What is the Conservative plan? We hear often from the Liberals that they want to hear the Conservative plan, so I will give a bit of what that looks like. We would stop going after those who are least likely to commit the crimes and put the violent repeat offenders behind bars, where they belong. We would ensure that a true balance was met so that Canadians could trust the fact that they are not being targeted simply because they go through the process and are trusted to own a firearm, unlike those who are not.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with some of the changes made to Bill C-21 along the way, and I really want to highlight the extraordinary work of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. We saw her take charge and manage this file for the Bloc Québécois. We are all very proud of what has been done on this file, which was very complex and whose path was very chaotic. I believe that the final result is very impressive.

One of the issues of great concern to people in my riding, and probably in many others as well, is that of airsoft guns, the controversial replica toy guns. Many people back home will be satisfied. As we worked on Bill C‑21, we also raised the issue of smuggling, crime and gun trafficking at the border. I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell us more about this.

What will Bill C‑21 do to fight organized crime and gun trafficking at the border?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-21. It is important for us to recognize that often legislation, like the budget, is brought into the chamber that is a reflection of what Canadians expect of the Government of Canada.

Leger did a poll regarding the manner in which the Government of Canada is moving toward the issue of gun control. There were 84% of Canadians who feel that this government is on the right track when it comes to gun control and the legislation being brought forward.

I would like to quote an article. The headline is, “MCC report calls for stricter gun laws”, and it states, “The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead makes several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada’s gun laws.” This is significant.

The commission is a non-partisan body. The chair of the commission, Michael MacDonald, is a retired Nova Scotia chief justice and the other commissioners are Leanne Fitch, who served for seven years as the chief of police for Fredericton Police Force, and Kim Stanton, a lawyer and legal scholar. Many recommendations called for stricter gun laws. This was earlier this year. The article went on to say, “The commission also determined that the safety of women survivors of intimate-partner violence is 'put at risk by the presence of firearms and ammunition in the household.'“

One of the Conservative members was critical of the red flag. When I think of the red flag component of the legislation, I think of a domestic abuse victim having to be put into a position where the spouse is a gun owner. Under the red flag now, this individual would be able to raise the issue in court and have the person's name kept off the record. I see that as a positive thing. If not directly, indirectly the commission refers to that. Those are the types of things in the legislation.

We hear members talk about ghost guns, something very real. If we were to check with law enforcement agencies from coast to coast to coast, we would find there is concern about the growing appetite to produce these ghost guns. We need this legislation. It would assist law enforcement officers to deal with this very serious issue. Let us think about it. A 3-D printer and someone with a mischievous criminal mind are a bad combination. The legislation before us would deal with that.

I want to pick up on a question that I posed to members opposite, because I really do believe that the Conservative Party's primary motivation in opposing this legislation is not because of gun owners, but because of the way Conservatives have manipulated the issue to the degree that they have raised millions of dollars for their party over the years. It is somewhat ironic when we stop and think about it. When the gun registry, for example, came into being, it was actually a Conservative idea. A Conservative senator brought it to Kim Campbell and Kim Campbell moved forward with it. She was a Progressive Conservative prime minister, and I underline the word “progressive”.

The current Conservative Party has abandoned that word. It has taken such a hard right turn. The other day, someone sent me a Twitter feed of the current leader of the Conservative Party. I could not believe it. Do we want to talk about motivation to run in elections, feeding conspiracy theories? It is totally amazing how far-fetched the leader of the Conservative Party is. He is in the non-reality zone, if I could put it that way, absolutely fact-free.

If we take a look at the gun issue, I genuinely believe that the Conservative Party is using this legislation as a mechanism to continue to spread information that just is not true. The member says, well, what kind of information? Trying to give hunters the impression that the government is after their guns: it is hard to believe. It is not true. We are not. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but we would not know based on some of the social media postings that we hear about coming from the Conservative Party.

At the end of the day, whether it is issues such as the gun registry from many years ago or other types of legislation that have come forward, the far right within the Conservative Party wants to use anything and everything that it can feed to that grouping of people in order to generate funds.

I think that when we listen to some of the reports that have come out, like I cited at the very beginning with the MCC, an apolitical, non-partisan commission, a commission that everyone supported, the report that it came forward with is very clear.

If we take a look at the information that we received from Canadians as a whole, such as, as I say, the Leger poll, 84% are saying we are on the right track.

When we talk about gun crimes, we have actually seen a decrease by 5% between 2020 and 2021.

Unlike the Conservative Party, we are after illegal guns that are coming up from the United States. Last year, 1,200 guns and tens of thousands of weapons were seized at the border. I will compare that to any year of Stephen Harper.

It is a combination of things that this government is doing to make our communities safer when it comes to gun violence, whether it is budget measures, supporting our border control officers, providing supports for law enforcement officers or enhancing the tools that are going to make a difference.

These are all the types of actions that this government has taken in response to what we know Canadians are genuinely concerned about.

I would suggest that my Conservative friends need to put the safety and concerns of Canadians ahead of political party financing and fundraising, to look in the mirror and understand the true value of this legislation, which is supported by all members, except for the Conservative members, I must say, and get behind it.

This is a good opportunity for them to take a flip-flop and support this legislation. By supporting this legislation, they would be telling Canadians that they support safer communities. They support legislation that is going to make a positive difference.

That is a powerful message and, coincidence would have it, it is factual and it would be nice to see coming from the Conservative Party.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, Carey Price did not know that the whole story behind the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights' Polytechnique discount code. I believe that if Carey Price had been aware of it, he would not have endorsed it in this way.

The fact remains that the principle is quite clear. Setting aside the promotional aspect, which was inappropriate, Carey Price's message essentially was to flag the story about amendments G-4 and G-46, which were in fact changed. That shows that there was truth in what Carey Price said.

As far as Bill C‑21 is concerned, we are against it. However, we proposed some amendments and supported others, just as we would for any other bill. Still, in the end, we cannot support the bill as a whole. It is a bit like a budget. There are things in a budget that we can support, but if there are too many things that do not suit us, we will vote against it.

We have never been against gun control in Canada. We are already one of the best-controlled societies in the world with the rules in place. As I said earlier, we have permits, we are monitored and that is great. We are not asking for less. It is just that sometimes, things are done in a way outside of what should be done to ensure general public safety.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not strictly have questions. Instead, I have comments on what I have learned from my colleague's speech.

He began by saying that the Conservative Party never supported Bill C-21. I would remind him that in committee, the Conservative Party voted in favour of most of the amendments that were on the table. However, it is understandable that they were particularly in favour of measures on ghost weapons and yellow flags, so it is not entirely true to say that they are against everything in it.

Next, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, but I would be careful before praising Carey Price. He knows that very well. We remember that when Carey Price posted his photo with a firearm in hand that was not even affected by Bill C‑21, he did so praising a firearms lobby that offered a promotional code to its members for lobby promotional material or equipment by using the code “Poly”. This is a reference to the Polytechnique killings that took place some years ago and it offered this to its members. I find that disgusting.

Now, the Conservative Party says that Carey Price knows what he is talking about. I am a hockey fan and I have a lot of respect for Carey Price's talent, but I would be careful before praising someone who praised a firearms lobby and uses the promotional code “Poly”. I will reassure him. He says that the government takes him for a criminal because he has a permit and he will no longer be able to be a sport shooter and continue to practice. If he has a permit at this time, he can continue to practise his sport. The freeze means that there are people who do not have a permit at this time and they will not be able to get one in the future.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about Bill C-21, which was tabled by the Liberal government in May 2022. When Bill C‑21 was tabled, the Prime Minister stated that its purpose was to stop gun crime before it starts. Canadians now realize that the purpose of the bill was never to improve public safety, and the proof is in the details.

Since the Prime Minister came to power, his party has said one thing and done another. Violent crime is on the rise, street gangs do not fear law enforcement due to the Liberals' revolving-door justice system, and Canadians have reason to be afraid.

The Conservatives never supported this bill because we knew that it was more about Liberal ideology than the safety of Canadians. We knew that it was about confiscating the property of hunters and law-abiding Canadians, because it is not the first time the Liberals have tried to do that. With Bill C‑21, the Liberals also added amendments without allowing for debate in the House. It was not until Carey Price spoke out against them publicly that the Liberals cancelled their decision.

It is now clear that they did not learn anything from that public humiliation, because they are proposing to create an advisory committee that will do their dirty work for them. At the end of that exercise, hunters, sport shooters and law-abiding Canadians will have their property confiscated by this government. Step by step, amendment by amendment, the Liberals will achieve their end goal, and that is why they must be voted out.

The “red flag” measure in the bill has been rejected by law enforcement and victims' groups like PolyRemembers. This just makes the stench of Liberal hypocrisy even more blatant.

The government always does the same thing. It claims to have solutions and solemnly promises that it will fix everything, but, as we can see from Bill C‑21, it does the opposite. Regulating people whose weapons are already very well regulated will do nothing to improve public safety.

The “red flag” measure is also being implemented. It is a rule that could potentially have been useful. I thought that the “red flag” measure would apply to cases where a gun owner who has mental health problems is reported, for example. The problem is that, the way the measure was designed, it is the victims who bear the burden of proof.

This week, we mark Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. We should think about the victims a bit more often. Victims bear the burden of filing a complaint with the court. That makes no sense. It has been denounced by groups like PolyRemembers and many other victims' groups, as well as by the police. Initially, doctors' groups supported the idea but, after taking a closer look, they ultimately said that it made no sense.

I was at committee when the vote took place. The Bloc Québécois agreed with us on it. We listened to the same presentations from victims' groups. The Conservatives and the Bloc members voted against the “red flag” amendment. We do not know why the Liberals dug in their heels, with the support of their NDP buddies.

When discussing public safety, we should always put victims and potential victims first. What we understand from the philosophy behind Bill C‑21 is that law-abiding citizens are being controlled and victims are not even being listened to, even though they are the main people involved. I look at it from every angle, but I still cannot understand.

Why is the government, with the support of the NDP, still taking a path that defies all logic? Who is it trying to please and, above all, to what end?

Ultimately, what we all want, or should want, is to protect public safety and Canadians. Think about what has been done in recent years. Think about the rules that were put in place under Bill C-5, which was implemented last fall. It is a disaster. Even our friends in the Bloc said that they should not have supported the Liberal government with that bill and that changes needed to be made.

Bill C‑75 was passed a few years ago. At the time, the Conservatives once again pointed out that the legislation was shoddy, particularly with respect to bail. Today, the government sees that it did a bad job drafting the legislation and that it is no good.

Every time, the government accuses the Conservatives of wanting to be hard on criminals.

Meanwhile, it develops and passes legislation that gives criminals a lot of latitude. Ultimately, criminals make a mockery of the justice system—and again, the victims pay the price. The victims do not understand.

As proof, since the government took power in 2015 and implemented all these changes, there has been a 32% increase in violent crimes. That is quite clear.

We can see the signs. Criminals are not afraid. Criminals are making a mockery of the justice system. They are making a mockery of law enforcement. Unfortunately, the police must enforce the law and the courts must apply the law as it is passed here in the House. Their hands are tied. Criminals see that and scoff at the whole thing.

A few weeks ago, I introduced Bill C-325, which will be debated when we return in two weeks. My bill addresses three things. The first is conditional release. I recently learned that some prisoners accused of serious and violent crimes, drug trafficking crimes or other crimes who are granted conditional release face no consequences when they fail to comply with the conditions. The police arrive, they see a criminal who is not complying with their conditions and all they can do is submit a report to the parole officer. I learned that, in 2014, one of our former colleagues had introduced a private member’s bill to address that. Unfortunately an election was called. My bill seeks to change the law to bring in consequences for breaching conditions of release.

The second element of my bill provides that parole officers must report to authorities when one of their “clients” is not complying with their conditions. In such cases, the parole officer must report to the police so there can be an arrest. We are talking about violent offenders.

The third element of my bill seeks to correct the problem that was created by Bill C-5, namely allowing violent criminals to serve a sentence in the community, watching Netflix at home. People saw what happened last fall. This makes no sense. It does not work. One of the components of Bill C-325 amends the Criminal Code to put an end to these situations that show the public how criminals are laughing at the justice system. That is not how we should be living in Canada. I will discuss my bill in greater detail in two weeks.

I will come back to Bill C-21. Me, I am a gun owner. When the Liberals accused us of being in the pay of the gun lobby, I felt personally targeted, since I am a gun owner myself. I have my licences. I have everything required. I am not a criminal. I passed my tests. Moreover, Quebec has the Act to protect persons with regard to activities involving firearms, the former Bill 9, which contains additional measures to ensure compliance. Membership in a gun club is mandatory. People must go there to shoot at least once a year to abide by the law in Quebec.

Therefore, when we look at all the rules in place that people must obey, I do not see why we should suddenly feel like criminals. Bill C‑21 is directly aimed at people like me. I began shooting at the age of 17 in the Canadian Armed Forces. I have always obeyed the law. I have always done what I was asked to do. Daily checks are conducted in the RCMP system to ensure that law-abiding people with registered licences obey the law. That is what is done.

Why am I now being targeted by people saying I am a criminal and in the pay of lobbies when I have my licences and obey the law?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I did not get to talk about is all of the investments and programming that the government has made with respect to changing culture and ensuring that there is a place to go and an alternative to crime, particularly in urban areas, so that young men, primarily, have access to sport, the arts, mentors and role models. That is what is missing in so many of those communities: making sure there are services and programs available. I used to work with a justice-involved youth organization called MLSE LaunchPad, in downtown Toronto. It was an extraordinary organization that made sure there were options for kids so they could make good choices. That is exactly what Bill C-21 would do.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified that the NDP was able to force the withdrawal of amendments G-4 and G-46 in February, which caused such consternation to law-abiding gun owners across the country. What has replaced them, as members are well aware, are provisions that tackle the ghost guns used by criminals. We have seen an epidemic in various parts of the country, like in my region where we have seen a tenfold increase in the use of untraceable firearms by criminals. That has to be addressed immediately. Law enforcement is calling for the powers that have now been put in through amendments to Bill C-21.

I would ask my colleague this. Why do the Conservatives seem so hell-bent on filibustering the bill and filibustering the considerations around ghost guns, so law enforcement can actually take action against criminals who use these ghost guns?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to reassure our community about how important this bill is in preventing firearms trafficking.

A record number of guns last year were seized at the border, but we need to do more. Bill C-21 would do more. It would invest in the CBSA, after the Conservatives cut so much of the funding for our border services agency. They like to say that all these guns are coming in from the United States, yet we are standing up and ensuring that does not happen.

I hear the member's comment with respect to the maximum sentence, which also needs to go up so that the worst offenders spend more time in prison. I know that bail reform is forthcoming from the Minister of Justice, and I am looking forward to that as well, because it has been a topic of conversation in the House and elsewhere.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he wanted communities to be safer.

In Bill C-21, the government is increasing the maximum sentences for firearms trafficking. However, it is very rare for an individual to get the maximum penalty for such an offence because criminal networks use people with no criminal records who are then given shorter sentences.

My colleague says he wants to live in a safer community. Does he believe that increasing maximum sentences that are never actually imposed will be enough to accomplish that?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to rise in the House to acknowledge the very hard work of the public safety committee and many members in the House who have been tireless in their advocacy and their consultations with various groups across the country, and to speak to the importance of the bill, as we aim to strengthen public safety in our communities and ensure they continue to be safe.

I would be remiss if I did not at the onset of my speech acknowledge that my home riding of Milton has been impacted by gun violence in the last couple of years. It has been extraordinarily difficult to come to terms with the fact that guns are making their way into our communities, when criminals have access to more guns. When there are more guns in society, criminals will find their way to these guns.

There have been deaths in my community, and I want to express my condolences to the friends, family and co-workers of those individuals who have lost their lives due to this senseless violence. I committed to them that I would stand in the House and ensure that we would pass fair and responsible laws that would protect families and people in my riding who do not want more guns in their community. They want fewer guns and safer communities.

That is what we are doing today, and I am proud to be supporting the legislation.

Over the last couple of days, there has been a lot of indignation in the House. The Conservatives have been indignant that they have not had enough time to speak to the bill. At the same time, those same members have been filibustering at committee, wasting time and the opportunity to debate. We finally are at place where we can vote on the bill and protect Canadians with more responsible gun laws. I am grateful for all of the members's hard work and their ability to endure that filibuster. It is really unnecessary.

This indignation is the result of the progress being made collectively with all other parties in the House. Every other party except the Conservative Party supports these responsible gun laws moving forward. I want to thank them for that.

I also want to express disappointment that the gun lobby has found so many strong voices in the Conservative Party. Time and time again, the Conservatives have stood in the House to say that they are standing up for indigenous hunters or Olympic athletes, when all they are really doing is parroting lines from the gun lobby. Many of the members have been keynoting fundraisers for the gun lobby. They have been speaking at their events.

At the same time, the member for Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party, will send out tweets saying that the Liberal government wants to take their guns, that they should sign a petition or that they should sign up with the Conservatives and send them a donation if they disagree. That type of fundraising on the back of the gun lobby and that NRA-style of politics has no place in Canada.

I would like to move on to a very difficult to talk about issue, and that is domestic abuse and suicide and the role that guns play in households across the country with respect to that.

Abusers with guns in the home are five times more likely to kill their wives and children. It does not matter if they are legally owned or if they are licensed firearms, that statistic rings true. Domestic abuse continues to be an absolute plague. I will also call it “men's violence against women”. Domestic abuse does not put a fine enough point on it in my view.

More guns in society means more gun murders. I used to live in Florida, where there were hundreds and hundreds of guns in every community. There are more guns in the United States than there are people. People often say that Canada is nothing like the United States, and thank God for that. Let us ensure we continue to be different than the United States, where there are mass shootings on a daily basis, where there are tragic school shootings on such a frequent basis that people try to ignore it when it is on the news.

We need to acknowledge that we have had some really tragic shooting events in Canada as well. We need to stand and say that these are preventable with more responsible gun laws. This bill, Bill C-21, and the amendments henceforth will strengthen those laws and ensure that we build a country going forward that has fewer guns and fewer tragedies as a result.

I want to move on to another very difficult to talk about issue in Canada, and that is with respect to suicide and mental. Studies show that homes that have guns in them are far more likely to experience death from suicide. It is a terrible fact that in some cases, and this is very challenging to talk about, it is easier to pick up a gun than a phone.

It is true that we need to ensure there are better services for people with mental health who are struggling with suicidality. The statistics really bear this out. If there are more guns in society when people are struggling, it results in really horrible outcomes for people and families.

There needs to a phone closer to peoples' bedside tables than a firearm when they are struggling. That is true in cases of domestic violence and suicidality. However, when I think about the country I would like my kids to grow up in, if I am lucky enough to ever have kids, it is one with fewer firearms and a safer community where we do not need to worry about these types of consequences and tragedies happening so often.

I will move on to something a little less difficult for me to talk about, which is sport. I am the parliamentary secretary for sport and I have a lot of friends who have gone to the Olympics for sport shooting. Repeatedly, over the last hour or so, I heard the Conservatives talk about how we are taking guns away from Olympic athletes, and that just could not be further from the truth. There are a number of categories of individuals who are licensed to carry certain firearms in Canada, and Olympic sport shooters and those training to go to the Olympics are a part of those.

There are about 4,000 athletes in Canada, with whom the federal government works, on national teams for the Olympics and the Paralympics, but over 8,000 athletes are licensed to own certain types of firearms and use those firearms in the context of sport. I want to ensure that everybody in the House is aware of the fact that in the 10 events at the summer Olympics, because there is one in the winter Olympics as well if we include the biathlon, of the 10 types of guns used, four of them are air guns.

The modern pentathlon has moved to a laser gun. They do not want to worry about various restrictions in some countries and bringing these guns on planes and across borders and so on, so they are taking a more modern approach to the sport and using a laser gun. In the 10 sport shooting categories, four of those guns are air pistols or rifles. They are not in those banned categories. The rifles are bolt action, so single shot, which are also not banned. The other ones are shotguns, which are also not on any list.

All of the hysteria from the other side about how this law will make it more difficult for athletes to train for their event at the Olympics is a false narrative. Those members have continually said that they are standing up for Olympians and pointed over at me, as the Olympian in the House, as to say I should be standing up for my friends and colleagues. I had a lot of meetings with them.

I was talking to members from the Canadian Olympic Committee as early as today about this issue. Those athletes are exempt and protected, and we will continue to work with athletes if they have other concerns, because these laws are not meant to take guns away from sport shooters or certainly not Olympians.

I would like to move on a bit and talk about hunting and indigenous rights. Hunting is a way of life in Canada. It is a matter of food security. It is a matter of tradition. It is a matter of a way of life in Canada. That is why, over the last couple of months, the Minister of Public Safety has taken time to meet with hunters in Yukon and the Northwest Territories, as well as in closer urban centres. The measures we have taken reflect that work. They reflect that engagement and that communication so we respect the traditions of northerners, not just indigenous people but a lot of people who rely on firearms to ensure there is food in the freezer over the course of the winter. These amendments do not touch guns commonly used for hunting. They apply for a forward-looking definition to protect our communities.

I also heard the Conservatives repeatedly say that they are standing up for indigenous rights. I do too. Ensuring indigenous people and their traditional ways of life are protected is a priority of mine and many people in the House. I want to reiterate that these amendments do not touch guns commonly used for hunting. In addition to that, these amendments also respect the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis, including a specific amendment that states clearly nothing in this definition will infringe on the rights of indigenous people under section 35 of the Constitution. The non-derogation clause for indigenous people is reaffirming the section 35 rights of indigenous people and reinforcing our UNDRIP obligations. I do not need to point out for members of the House that Conservatives voted against this, which is very sad.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-21.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague would agree with me that the public has an interest in seeing an end to illegal gun trafficking. In Bill C-21, the government increased the maximum penalties for firearms trafficking.

Does my colleague believe that this measure is sufficient?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I find most interesting about this whole debate, whether it is Bill C-21 or anything related to guns, is that the Conservative Party members consistently spread misinformation and they do that in order to generate funds for their political party, literally millions of dollars over the year. That is the primary reason for the spreading of misinformation that we see.

My concern or my question for the member is this: Does he not see the benefit in terms of having legislation that would make our communities safer? When will the Conservative Party put the safety of our community ahead of Conservative fundraising?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear: The Liberal government does not want us to debate Bill C-21. It wants it to be imposed on this House and on Canadians.

Today, we are limited to just a single day of debate, because the Liberal government decided to force a closure motion through the House to prevent parliamentarians from debating this legislation in detail. This is fundamentally undemocratic, and it is certainly not in the best interest of those who will be affected by many of its problematic measures.

When Bill C-21 was announced by the public safety minister last fall, Conservatives were hopeful that this bill would include measures that are tough on crime and that would crack down on illegally smuggled handguns, which are contributing to the 32% increase in violent crime since the Prime Minister took office.

However, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security was instead presented with a deeply flawed piece of legislation that needed to be amended countless times by the Liberal government and opposition parties. We have heard from numerous witnesses and stakeholders that this bill will do nothing to crack down on the violent criminals who are terrorizing our streets.

The constituents of Liberal, NDP and Bloc members in rural ridings know very well what this legislation does. If it passes, the only people it will materially affect are law-abiding firearms owners who use their firearms as tools to hunt, sport-shoot and protect their livestock, while street gangs and criminals can continue to use their illegally smuggled firearms.

To reiterate, this legislation affects 2.3 million law-abiding firearms owners, thousands of small businesses and jobs, and, as a result, hundreds of millions of dollars of the economy. Before getting into the specific deficiencies of this legislation, I want to take a moment and revisit how the Liberal government made a mess of this situation.

In late November, forgoing the usual practices of doing any form of consultation or technical briefings for parliamentarians and the media, the Minister of Public Safety table-dropped amendments at the eleventh hour that constituted what would be the largest ban on hunting rifles and shotguns in Canadian history.

The Liberal government would like people to believe that the only ones who opposed its misguided amendments were members of the Conservative Party. In reality, the push-back against the Liberal Party's poorly planned amendments and legislation was driven by a grassroots movement of hunters, sport shooters, indigenous groups and farmers who are concerned about their livelihood, their sport, their culture and, above all, public safety.

Naturally, hunters, sport shooters, farmers, indigenous groups and provincial and territorial premiers from coast to coast took notice and voiced their concerns. Even members of the Liberal caucus stood up and said that they would not be able to vote in favour of Bill C-21 if these amendments were included in the bill. Canadians saw these amendments for what they were: the largest assault on law-abiding firearms owners in Canadian history.

As a result, the Liberals withdrew their amendments, and the opposition parties on the public safety committee began consultations, which the Liberal government had failed to do, on the proposed amendments to Bill C-21. We heard from a diverse range of voices that shared their concerns with the amendments and the lack of consultation from the Liberal government.

I would like to highlight one individual’s testimony in particular. Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake spoke to us and stated that no consultations were done prior to drafting the government’s amendments to Bill C-21 or prior to Bill C-21 itself. She noted that while she appreciated the Minister of Public Safety taking the time to meet briefly with the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, she did not consider that meeting to be a consultation.

Unfortunately, the Liberals dismissed legitimate concerns such as these by repeatedly, in the House and in committee, calling them disinformation and misinformation.

My colleagues and I wrapped up these consultations with stakeholders on March 10 and waited patiently for the Minister of Public Safety to come before our committee and testify. In fact, I think many Canadians at home would be surprised to know that our committee waited six full weeks, until April 25, to hear from the minister.

Shortly after, the Liberals introduced new amendments, which, to be clear, are the same as the old ones, and the commonly used hunting firearms targeted by the Liberals in the fall would likely be added to the ban by the new Liberal firearms advisory panel. Conservatives have no confidence that this advisory panel would do anything other than advise the minister to take legally obtained firearms away from law-abiding Canadians.

Now that we have discussed the abuse of process and the failure of the government regarding this legislation, I will go on to outline some of the problematic measures in Bill C-21, which have widespread opposition from stakeholders.

First, the Liberal government introduced a regime known as “red flag laws”. We have heard almost unanimously from stakeholders that Bill C-21’s proposed red flag measures are costly, ineffective and redundant. We have red flag laws in this country under section 117 of the Criminal Code. Police services have the authority to act immediately, with or without a warrant, when there is a genuine concern for public safety. However, Bill C-21 attempts to introduce a regime whereby victims would have to stand in front of a judge in a secret hearing without the other party present and without any access to police resources in order to have firearms taken away from a dangerous individual.

During our deliberations on this bill, we heard from women's and community groups such as the National Association of Women and the Law, PolySeSouvient and the Battered Women's Support Services, which all said that the proposed red flag laws were unnecessary and counterproductive and could be even harmful.

We also heard from indigenous leaders, such as Terry Teegee from the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations and Heather Bear from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, who both expressed concerns with the fact that these provisions do not clearly outline how they would respect the hunting rights of indigenous individuals.

Even further, we heard from medical professionals, such as Dr. Atul Kapur from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, who stated, “Placing the onus on victims of interpersonal violence or on a family member of a depressed person...is largely unworkable and an unwelcome hindrance to getting the guns temporarily out of the homes of those in crisis.”

We also heard from law enforcement officers, such as Dale McFee from the Edmonton Police Service, who stated that this law “would pose a significant draw on police resources should numerous applications be granted at a time when many Canadian police services are [already] stretched thin.”

Conservatives on the public safety committee listened to this testimony. They recognized that these measures are harmful and proposed to have them removed entirely from the bill. Unfortunately, the Liberal-NDP coalition voted against that, effectively silencing the voices of women's groups, indigenous leaders, law enforcement and medical professionals.

Another issue that the Liberal government touted as being tough on crime is increasing maximum sentences from 10 years to 14 years for illegal gun traffickers. While we support these measures in principle, we know that the current government's soft-on-crime policy means that not a single person has ever received the current maximum sentence for these crimes in the eight years that the Liberals have been in power.

Finally, this legislation targets competitive sport shooters in such a severe way that it would literally lead to the demise of the sport. The legislation effectively means that those who use lawfully obtained handguns to safely participate in an internationally recognized sport would no longer be able to do so. Noah Schwartz, a professor of political science at the University of the Fraser Valley, commented on these measures, noting that “firearms, and the shooting sports that they facilitate, allow people to connect with family, friends and a broader community of gun owners. At a time when making social connections is more difficult than ever, it seems strange to sacrifice these communities for a false impression of safety.”

Bill C-21 would outlaw competitive sport shooting, except for individuals who are already training for the Olympics. I would encourage the Liberal members to consider how one can become an Olympic athlete without training and practice. Reasonable amendments to this prohibition from the Conservatives to allow members of the International Practical Shooting Confederation to continue their sport were unfortunately voted down.

What may be surprising to many is that members of the Liberal government tried to stop a rural member of their own caucus from speaking out against these measures at the public safety committee. Thankfully, the Conservative members on the committee gave up some of their own time so that he could speak. That member spoke out against the restrictions on competitive sport shooting, stating, “If there is one organization outside of Olympic shooters this committee and indeed this government should consider, I think it's IPSC.”

This is more evidence that the government does not want to hear the voices of hunters, sport shooters and farmers. It is not interested in the lives of the rural Canadians whom the legislation would impact.

It is time for the Liberals to get serious about tackling the root causes of criminal violence. In the eight years since the Prime Minister took office, violent crime has increased by 32% and gang-related murders have doubled. I have no faith that this legislation would do anything to reverse that trend. Only a Conservative government would invest in policing and secure borders to address the real root cause of crime, rather than spending billions of dollars on confiscating firearms from law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people.

In closing, we were all elected to this House to represent the voices of our constituents, and the limited time we have today to debate this legislation stifles our ability to do so. I would like to thank the members of my community and individuals across Canada who have reached out to me about this important issue. They can rest assured that I will continue to advocate for law-abiding Canadian firearms owners, despite the Liberal government's draconian tactics.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was a mass shooting in the city of Vaughan. It happened just around the Christmas period, and it needlessly impacted so many families. Bill C-21 is, again, another step. We have multiple pillars to reduce senseless gun violence in Canada. That is an example that unfortunately has impacted a number of families and a number of people who were not going to be able to be with their families any longer. Bill C-21 would be a big significant step in combatting gun violence, in terms of the example of what happened in Vaughan where people are still grieving from that needless tragedy.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, much has been said about the rights of hunters and the rights of guns owners, but perhaps not enough about the victims. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge would know that all too well, given the mass shooting that occurred at the condo in his riding; five people were murdered, and my dear friend, Doreen DiNino, was the lone survivor.

Is the hon. member satisfied understanding that the shooter was a PAL owner and did have legally acquired firearms? Is he satisfied that the legislation, Bill C-21, would help prevent the future atrocities and tragedies of a mass shootings like the one that has occurred in his riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that I rise to speak to this bill today for a number of reasons. This bill reflects the will of the House, the will of the committee and the will of Canadians.

On a somewhat personal level, I will say that we are all here as a members of Parliament. Our families have jobs that they do back home, and so do our brothers and sisters and so forth. One of my siblings, one of my brothers, has been a first responder for the Vancouver Police Department for a long time. If I can put a date on it, my brother and the Minister of International Development, the former defence minister, actually went through police training together many decades ago.

I reside in Ontario. My family all resides in British Columbia and, for the longest time, when my brother did his job, I never thought about his safety. Recently though, over the last few years, I do think about his safety quite a bit. My heart goes out to all of those families who have been impacted by gun violence, particularly, of course, the first responders who are doing their job, day in and day out, whether it is in Prince Rupert, Prince George, Halifax, Vaughan or the Lower Mainland in Vancouver as part of the Vancouver Police Department. This legislation we have brought forward, after exhaustive consultation, is another piece of recognizing that we must do something. We must act.

I am glad to see that the committee on public safety has incorporated amendments. I am glad to see that hunters, folks pursuing a traditional way of life, sports shooters and so forth, can continue to do what they do because I know many of them, on both sides, from my time growing up in northern British Columbia in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I remember going up to the Skeena River and people going hunting and shooting for moose or deer. As well, in my riding of Vaughan, many folks go up to northern Ontario to go hunting. It is important that they continue to do those pursuits. I am glad to see that.

At the same time, handguns and AR-15 style weapons have no place, in my view, in our society. We need to make sure Canadians feel safe in their community. We need to make sure that Canadians know they are safe and that is what our government is doing.

I wanted to put that thought forward because not a day goes by now when I do not think about my brother on duty and what he does for the Vancouver Police Department keeping the citizens in Vancouver safe. Not a day goes by now that I do not try to call to ask how he is doing and how he and his family and his daughters are doing because that is where we are today. I am glad we are acting.

I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments, firearms. We have said all along that this bill is historic. It is the most significant step in gun reform in a generation. Canadians deserve safe, common-sense firearms laws, while, virtually every day, we see media reports of gun violence in our communities.

Each one is a tragedy involving someone, whether a child, a parent, a partner, a friend, a brother or a sister, who was loved and is now missed by their community. That is exactly why we have taken the time to reflect, consult and discuss Bill C-21 with survivors, indigenous communities, industry groups and hunters, and why, after meticulous study and consideration, we recently brought forward amendments to the bill. We know that gun safety cannot wait, but we have been careful to balance the urgency of this bill with the need to get it right. This government has done more than any other to advance gun safety.

Three years ago, we banned 1,500 assault-style firearms, those that have no place outside the battlefield of war. We introduced the bill before us today, Bill C-21. This bill would inscribe into law the national freeze on handguns.

It would target organized crime, with stiffer sentences for trafficking guns and new charges for altering the magazine or cartridge of a gun to exceed its lawful capacity. It would take much needed steps to address the role of firearms in gender-based violence. While there is no obligation for survivors of gender-based violence to use these laws, they can help prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands and stop needless tragedies before they occur.

Someone who currently or previously had a restraining order against them would no longer be able to obtain a firearms licence. We are proud to introduce new red flag laws that mean courts could take firearms away from those who are a danger to themselves or anyone else. Bill C-21 also contains new yellow flag laws to allow chief firearms officers to suspend an individual's firearms licence if the CFO receives information calling into question their licence eligibility.

Furthermore, with the support of our colleagues in SECU, we adopted amendments that would help protect victims of violence and those at risk of self-harm by a firearm. Firearms licences would be revoked within 24 hours in cases of domestic or intimate partner violence, and there would be new exemptions for those who use a firearm for their employment. When a weapons prohibition order or protection order is issued, this would be reported to authorities within 24 hours. Further, if a person is undergoing a mental health crisis, they would be able to temporarily transfer their firearm to another person or business, helping to keep themselves or their loved ones safe.

Again, survivors of violence are under no obligation to take such actions, and measures would be taken to protect the identity of vulnerable individuals who do provide information to the courts. Canadians' safety is our utmost, paramount concern. Bill C-21 is another step to bring in needed, prudent and necessary measures on ending and preventing gun violence.

We have heard jarring statistics from my colleagues that the more available guns are, the higher the risk of people dying unnecessarily in tragic situations of homicide and suicide. We can all look at the statistics in the United States for that fact. Let me be frank, the only sensible response to these kinds of cold, hard facts is the kind of gun reform we are discussing here today. As soon as we know that something is dangerous and unnecessary, we have an obligation to remove that risk from our communities and protect the people in them. This is particularly true when those who are at highest risk are already marginalized in our society and vulnerable to violent outcomes.

When it comes to assault-style firearms, we are compelled to act now. We know that if the most lethal guns are unavailable for purchase, if they are present in fewer numbers in our communities, we can drastically reduce the number of victims of gun violence. Some folks talk about causation and correlation. One fact we know is that in the United States the use of AR-15 type assault rifles is killing people needlessly. In Canada, we are not going to allow those types of U.S. gun laws to come here. We are going to make sure we have sensible gun laws that make sure that those types of weapons do not exist in our country.

We know that if the most lethal guns are unavailable for purchase, if they are present in fewer numbers in our communities, we can drastically reduce the number of victims of gun violence. This is what Canadians want. The proposed technical definition of prohibited firearms allows us to proactively address advances in the firearms market and keep firearms designed for the battlefield off our streets. Incorporating technical criteria in this definition puts the onus on industry to do their part in protecting our communities from assault-style firearms.

We also brought forward amendments to address emerging threats, such as ghost guns. Bill C-21 would make all illegally manufactured firearms, also known as ghost guns, prohibited firearms, create new offences to prohibit the possession, access, distribution, making available or publication of digital files and blueprints, and regulate the transfer and importation of certain parts to ensure they are not being used to create ghost guns. Again, this is not about taking guns away from responsible handgun owners, hunters or sport shooters. This is about tackling violent crime and preventing senseless, tragic deaths.

That brings me back to the amendments to Bill C-21 we recently introduced that were adopted last week in committee. I applaud the committee members for their hard work on this very important piece of gun safety legislation. It is prudent legislation to prevent needless, senseless deaths by guns. Guns kill people.

As I mentioned earlier, we have taken the time to speak with constituents from coast to coast to coast. It does not matter where one goes in this great country, in every corner, we could find skilled, experienced hunters who are more than happy to chat for hours about how it is more than a hobby for them, how it is been passed down through generations, and how it forms a key part of their culture and way of life.

That is why these latest amendments provide clarity and protections around responsible gun ownership. We are focused on the most pressing issue, keeping Canadians safe. Again, as we have said from the beginning, no single initiative would end gun violence, but Bill C-21 is a major component. It is one of three key pillars of our plan. The second pillar is strengthening resources to tackle gun crime, including smuggling, preventing firearms from entering our borders in the first place and targeting ghost guns. The third pillar is about investing in communities. Initiatives like the national crime prevention strategy, the gun and gang violence action fund, and the building safer communities fund get straight to the roots of violence. They stop it before it starts.

I look forward to questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in Amendment

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. The Conservatives say they have to have exemptions, but now they want to get rid of this exemption. That is ridiculous, and it goes to show how the Conservative Party is just not taking the Bill C‑21 debate seriously. They did nothing to delete the amendments the Liberals put forward in committee in November. They did nothing to improve the bill. I am glad they supported amendments from the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc, but the Conservative Party contributed absolutely nothing at any point in the process. Now the Conservatives are even contradicting themselves. They are proposing amendments that cancel measures they themselves said were essential.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about consistency. Over the past few months, the Conservatives have repeatedly criticized Bill C‑21 on the grounds that it attacks sport shooters and athletes. Clause 43 actually mentions these elite sport shooters to protect them from the handgun freeze, but—surprise, surprise—the Conservatives want to delete that clause. I wonder if my colleague can explain to us why they are saying that, on the one hand, we have to protect shooters and, on the other, we have to delete the only clause that protects them.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recall over a year ago, when Bill C-21 was introduced, just how giddy with glee the NDP was until it had an epiphany about the impact this was going to have on its rural ridings. Those ridings include Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, Courtenay—Alberni, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, North Island—Powell River, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Timmins—James Bay and Nunavut. All of those MPs reversed course on Bill C-21 when they, in fact, were supporting it at the beginning.

Canadians are not stupid. Members in those ridings and the citizens in those ridings are not stupid, and they will remember what the NDP did with Bill C-21.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out that the purpose of report stage is to consider motions in amendment.

As I mentioned earlier, I find it odd that the Conservatives are putting forward amendments that do the exact opposite of what they proposed in committee. It will be up to them to defend their intentions in that regard. The other report stage motions will, I think, improve Bill C-21. That much is clear after this whole process.

Some major gun control organizations, including the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns and the National Association of Women and the Law, appeared before the committee. They all proposed amendments that improved the bill.

Bill C-21 also provides a technical definition that is important. These are all important elements to consider.

The NDP was instrumental in bringing in an approach far more sensible than that of the Liberal government with the amendments it presented last November. Those amendments were brought forward without any consultation with indigenous communities and hunters.

The amendments that strengthen every aspect of the red flag and yellow flag measures significantly improve Bill C‑21. That is extremely important.

I cannot speak about the bill without speaking about the Conservative filibuster. I found it profoundly disingenuous. On the one hand, Conservatives protested that they were not filibustering the bill, and on the other hand, on social media, they were making speeches and saying very clearly how they were filibustering the bill.

Yes, it is true that the Liberals tabled amendments that were done without forethought and without any understanding of the consequences. Amendments G-4 and G-46 were tabled without any consultation at all. The NDP pushed back against that. I cannot show this, but I have my amendment book in front of me. It would be considered a prop for me to show G-46 withdrawn, so I will not do that, but I find it strange that, since then, Conservatives have continued to act as if those amendments were still on the table. We just heard the Conservative public safety critic, yet again, talk about amendments that have been withdrawn.

The NDP played a key role in this. Members will recall both my statements in the House and the presentation of a motion at committee by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, which basically put pressure on the Liberals to withdraw those amendments, so they are non-existent, and for the Conservatives to pretend they are there is passing strange. Maybe that contradiction between, on the one hand, Conservatives trying to take credit for withdrawing the amendments and, on the other hand, trying to pretend the amendments are still there plays out with the report stage amendments, which, again, do the opposite of what Conservatives said they wanted to do with the bill. It is very strange.

I think it is fair to say that the filibuster was finally ended with the support of members of the House from virtually every other party, so that we could have a common-sense approach, article by article, with 20 minutes per clause. It is important to note that the 20 minutes was renewed numerous times. It was part of the motion that we could renew it, that if there was all-party agreement we could renew the discussions.

I think it is fair to say that members of the Conservative Party who participated in the deliberations in clause-by-clause were very constructive. The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound presented an amendment that was adopted unanimously, to provide provisions for those legal, law-abiding firearms owners who may be experiencing a mental health crisis. Conservatives voted with the other parties, so all parties voted together, on the vast majority of the amendments, including those around ghost guns. That is important because ghost guns are of a critical nature. We have seen an explosion of the use by criminals of untraceable firearms across the country, so the ghost gun provisions are absolutely essential.

Law enforcement has been calling for them for some time. In the United States, the Biden administration has seized over 20,000 ghost guns used in the commission of criminal acts over the course of the past year. In Canada, we are not even aware of what the full numbers are. I have requested that the Ministry of Justice start tracking the use of ghost guns, but anecdotally, in some parts of the country, there has been a 10-fold increase in a year. In other parts of the country, it is even higher than that.

The ghost gun provisions were absolutely essential. Again, it is fair to say the Conservatives actively participated in that. They seem to be singing a different song now in the House, but the reality is the committee process worked. The committee process went through all of the amendments, despite the fact, and I think it is fair to say, sometimes the Conservatives were repeating their questions numerous times trying to slow down the process. However, we got through all the essential amendments, with one exception, and that was on indigenous rights. That passed unanimously.

The committee process absolutely worked. The fact one can renew a 20-minute clause discussion absolutely worked, and the Conservatives were not able to block the ghost gun provisions, which law enforcement needs. Why the Conservatives were blocking ghost gun provisions, they will have to explain to the Canadian public.

It is not just that. We talked a few minutes ago about the importance of closing the loopholes for manufacturers and importers. We have functioned on an honour system, and this is something that simply cannot be permitted to continue, so closing those loopholes were absolutely essential.

The NDP tabled amendments, as well as all other parties, and we worked to strengthen the red flag and yellow flag provisions of the bill. It is fair to say, from the comments of the National Association of Women and the Law about those provisions, that those improvements are absolutely critical. There is no doubt the bill was improved. It was over a very intense week, but a week that allowed us to go clause-by-clause and work through the bill. The product is now before the House with a number of helpful report stage amendments and some, as I mentioned, inexplicable amendments from the Conservatives that contradict all the positions they have taken up until now.

The NDP also tabled amendments on airsoft, and this was vitally important to ensure the airsoft community could continue to engage. That is important. Airsoft has approached the whole issue of a framework around it in a very open way. There had been provisions that would have basically pushed airsoft aside. The NDP pushed the motion on that and succeeded in getting it through.

The indigenous rights component is absolutely fundamental. I know my colleague from Nunavut, who has been one of the foremost advocates for indigenous rights in the House of Commons, would say as well that the provisions, which are that nothing in Bill C-21 abrogates or derogates from indigenous rights under section 35 of the charter, are fundamental and should be in place in all government legislation moving forward.

We are tackling criminals. We are ensuring that manufacturers and importers now have a legal process to go through, and we are enhancing indigenous rights. We have also ensured, by pushing the government to reconstitute the firearms advisory committee, that it will include indigenous people, hunters, farmers and people who are advocates for firearms control. Putting Canadians in a room and letting them have those discussions and consultations is absolutely, fundamentally important.

All of these things are extremely essential. The one amendment that needs to be passed, hopefully in the Senate, would be to ensure the International Practical Shooting Confederation is also part of the exemptions around the use of handguns. This is essential. Other countries that have outlawed handguns allow an exemption for that organization.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I attended a dinner in Saint‑Alexis‑de‑Matapédia last week at a club for people 50 and over, and one of the organizers is even a member of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs.

It was a pleasure talking with him and letting him know that there has been a great deal of disinformation about Bill C-21, and that everyone was under the impression that hunting rifles were going to be prohibited, although that is not at all the case.

At that point, we had just adopted the definition. Hunting rifles were not at all affected by Bill C‑21 as amended. This is still true, after the committee study. I want to reassure hunters because the Bloc Québécois worked hard to ensure that hunting rifles are not affected.

Is the definition perfect? No. Could it be? We can never really achieve perfection, but we could certainly do more about the assault rifles that remain in circulation.

However, it would be false to say that hunting rifles are affected by Bill C‑21.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for your intervention.

I could spend all day talking about how the study of the bill proceeded in committee. I found it very interesting. It was my first real experience with a bill in committee since I was elected in 2019. I worked from beginning to end on the bill with my colleagues Ariane Francoeur, who is a constituency assistant, and Maxime Duchesne, a researcher.

We often see the government and the Conservatives surrounded by their armies of assistants and staff. There were only two of us, sometimes three, and we did what we could. I think we can be proud of the progress we made and the improvements we made to the bill.

Before getting into the details, I want to talk about a motion to amend that we added to the Notice Paper today. It is an amendment we were unable to present in committee because of a little procedural hiccup. We wanted to change a section in committee, but since it had just been modified by an amendment, we were unable to. Since we could not propose our amendment in committee, we went to work yesterday to ensure we could present it during the study of the bill at report stage. It concerns the “yellow flag” measure.

For those who are unaware, the yellow flag measure is intended to protect people who are directly in danger of gun violence, often women who are victims of domestic violence. It allows chief firearms officers to revoke a licence in cases of domestic violence or criminal harassment, when a protection order has been issued against the licence holder or when an emergency prohibition order is issued by a judge.

The government had the right intention when it came to implementing the yellow flag measure. However, some concerns were raised. Some people were given too much discretion. In this case, the owner was given the choice to surrender their firearm to anyone and too long a time to do it. We therefore wanted to change the deadline for licence holders to surrender their firearms to 24 hours following the revocation of their licence. That is what we changed by proposing the relevant amendment with the government, the NDP and the Green Party.

Then, when it came time to make a change regarding the person to whom owners would have to surrender their guns, we were unable to do so. That is what the amendment in today’s Notice Paper is about. It is the amendment we are presenting, and I am very happy to see that the government is presenting the exact same amendment. Our goal is the same, namely to protect women who are victims of violence. This reinforces the yellow flag measure.

The study in committee was extremely interesting. We were able to improve the bill. It is expected that the opposition parties will criticize bills, and that is a good thing. A year ago, when the government introduced Bill C-21, it was far from perfect. Instead of simply criticizing it, we made constructive proposals and submitted a bundle of amendments with a view to improving it.

There is more to this than just presenting an amendment in committee; we have to work behind the scenes with our colleagues to make our intentions clear and explain what it will change. Members of Parliament do not work alone. They also work with organizations that are paying close attention to the bill.

We were approached by groups who support gun control, people who have had very difficult experiences and who are familiar with the subject. I would particularly like to mention the work of the National Association of Women and the Law, which filed an entire brief. If everyone prepared such comprehensive briefs, it would help us in our work. Having such well-worded suggestions showed us exactly where we had to amend the bill and the reasons why it would be beneficial to do so. I would really like to thank these groups. I named only one, but there are many of them, and I am sure they know who they are.

The Bloc also made progress in all of this. We were talking about the infamous list of firearms the government wanted to include in the Criminal Code last November. We understood that not everyone was on board. The government failed to properly explain its reasoning. No one could make heads or tails of it and no one understood anything.

Amending the Criminal Code is not an easy task. It was necessary to include firearms that were prohibited in the 1990s and others that were prohibited in 2020, and to add new ones. All of them had to be lumped together to amend the Criminal Code. We know that the only list of prohibited firearms that is constantly being updated is the one maintained by the RCMP.

This list complicates the Criminal Code for nothing. The same work is done twice, and everyone is confused. We told the government that a list was not the best way to go. It confuses everyone. In addition, it makes hunters nervous. We saw this when a rumour went around that firearms that are reasonably used for hunting might be added to the list. I understand why hunters were afraid that the firearms they use for hunting would be prohibited as a result of this measure. The Bloc said that the best solution was to provide a good definition of a prohibited firearm, meaning a military assault-style weapon, and to make a clear distinction between this type of firearm and firearms used for hunting.

Two weeks ago, the government came back with its proposed amendment. The new proposed definition was not accompanied by a list. That is good news. If any hunters are listening today, they will understand that the firearm they use for hunting will not be included in the Criminal Code. That is very good. It is good news for them. The downside is that we are still leaving the 482 models on the market. When Bill C-21 is passed, we may have better gun control in Canada, but there will still be hundreds of assault-style models in circulation.

We therefore made a suggestion to the minister. We said that we were aware that those models included some firearms that are reasonably used for hunting. The government had identified a dozen of them. We suggested that it take those 12 models and give them to the firearms advisory committee that the government wants to resurrect. We understand that the committee will include people who are in favour of better gun control, representatives of indigenous communities, hunters and various other experts. These experts could issue an unbiased recommendation to the minister. In the meantime, the minister could immediately issue an order prohibiting the remaining 470 models, since we know full well they are military-style weapons that civilians should not have in their possession. That is what we proposed to the government.

Here is another good thing the Bloc Québécois did, and it is really not an exaggeration to say that we worked hard at it. The first version of the definition of a prohibited firearm included semi-automatic hunting rifles. They wanted to prohibit a firearm that is not a handgun, but that is a semi-automatic hunting rifle. How can we tell hunters that their hunting rifle will not be prohibited if the words “hunting rifle” appear in the law and in the definition? I think that removing these words in the French version, which were different in English, also reassured many people. I am very happy they were removed.

In its initial form, Bill C‑21 would have prohibited airsoft guns, which are used in games. These airsoft guns could be described as toys. The problem is that, over the years, manufacturers wanted so much to make them resemble real firearms that it has become confusing for police officers. Someone walking around with an airsoft gun can be confused for someone holding an assault weapon. The government therefore intended to simply ban them all, like the firearms that are already prohibited.

Airsoft afficionados across the country expressed their outrage. We can understand that. Why should they, who use airsoft for sport or as a hobby, be penalized? We succeeded in removing airsoft guns from the bill. That is very good news, a great achievement for the opposition parties. The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservative Party voted in favour of removing airsoft from the bill. The government abstained, so we were successful. That is very good.

I understand that I do not have much time left, but the good news is that I will be back tomorrow. I will also be here all day for questions and comments. We can discuss the bill further then.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I applaud the government for withdrawing its amendments on assault weapons in February and for tabling a new and, I think, improved version in May. However, not everyone is happy with this new version because it only applies prospectively. It affects only new weapons that will be coming on the market in future.

In May 2020, the government's order in council came under criticism because it was considered incomplete. People would have preferred an order in council banning guns that met the Criminal Code definition of a prohibited weapon. It was missing the definition. Now, the definition is there, but the government has decided to keep 480 models of firearms on the market even though most of them were developed for military purposes.

At this point, with the passage of Bill C‑21, the right thing for the minister to do would be to ban these firearms by order in council, taking care not to ban those that are reasonably used for hunting. Would my colleague agree with me that this is what the minister should do at this point?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech, and I heard much of the same rhetoric as I did during my participation at the public safety committee, although I do not think the member and I overlapped in our time at committee.

However, I do find it somewhat discouraging that, whenever the Liberals seem to be losing on any issue, and it is not limited to this, they simply say that the Conservatives are being partisan. They say things like we are bringing American-style politics into it, when the reality is that we heard from firearms owners across the country, many common-sense Canadians, who are feeling their voices silenced because of the Liberals' refusal to engage with that ownership community and so many others across the country who have valid concerns about Bill C-21 and the government's approach to confiscating, in many cases, the legally owned firearms of Canadians.

How can that member reconcile what he just said with the fact that so many Canadians are being silenced by his actions?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, as has now become very clear, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We have spent months on the legislation.

I thank my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for their work and their co-operation. We worked together to introduce a better bill for Canada and for Canadians.

It is also important that we remember something the CCFR probably does not want us to know but Canadians should. In committee, the Conservatives voted time and time again to support our amendments on this bill. Many of those good people know that legislation gets done in the committee room and not on social media. It is important to realize that.

I want to thank those members who were there to debate and to ensure that we improved the legislation. I want to particularly thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, who put forward an amendment that we all supported. That is how we should get things done in the House.

The process has been long and challenging, but we have ended up in a place where we have legislation that would keep our communities and our country safer, but would also preserve the way of life of many who hunt.

We have heard from professionals, victims of crime and their families, and also indigenous communities and hunters. Our government promised Canadians that we would provide a comprehensive and effective strategy to protect communities from gun violence, and we are making good on that promise.

Developing good laws is not just about theory. It is about much more than sitting in a black box and making things up. It is about learning and understanding.

When we started debating the bill, I was challenged by members opposite to take my PAL course so I would understand how firearms worked, because that was the claim that some made but, most important, to understand gun owners, those who want be gun owners, hunters and gun enthusiasts.

It was an important process for me to take that time to talk to them, both urban and rural, to build my understanding of what they thought and what mattered to them. I did this because at committee we had folks who would come and claim that they spoke for gun owners across the country. It very quickly became apparent that they did not.

First, the vast majority of gun owners support common-sense gun laws and they want safer communities for all of us. They are not fiercely partisan people with an axe to grind with our government or other governments. They are not interested in fiery rhetoric or in gaslighting people with silly tweets and rage-forming videos of out-of-context clips from the House of Commons.

They are good people who love our country and know that sometimes we must make difficult decisions to keep the country safer. They abhor ad hominem attacks on their fellow Canadians, and they are disgusted by the type of vitriol spread by organizations like the CCFR.

They find it distasteful when they see politicians choosing to use this “taking their guns away” narrative for personal gain or to fundraise by misleading them and taking them for fools. They know better than to be told by members opposite that gun ownership is a right in Canada, that we have some equivalent to a U.S. amendment right. They know that is simply not true. They have my utmost respect, and I want them to know that we have heard them.

Second, I learned, and I heard from them, that they take seriously the responsibility of gun ownership, particularly when it comes to getting guns intended to kill as many people as possible off our streets. They know, just as we do, that gun crime is not just an urban issue; it affects Canadians of all walks of life. They know that when it comes to suicide, guns in the home is a major issue we need to address.

The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens and, contrary to what they might hear, this law would not affect them. The four criteria that make something a prohibited firearm are: first, a firearm that is not a handgun; second, discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner; three, designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more; four, and the one thing that members opposite conveniently forget to include, that it is designed and manufactured on or after the date on which this paragraph comes into force.

We keep forgetting that. It is really important that Canadians hear the truth. Let us think about that in the context of what we hear from the opposition. If a gun does not meet those criteria, it is not considered to be prohibited. I am not sure why those members choose to mislead Canadians.

Our government understands that for some communities the ability to hunt means being able to feed their family. It is part of the way of life for many Canadians, particularly in the north, where it is a matter of survival. The bill would protect their ability to do that.

We have also ensured that the bill respects the right of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities from coast to coast to coast. It includes a specific amendment that states clearly that nothing in this definition would infringe on the rights of indigenous peoples under their section 35 rights of the Constitution. By including this non-derogation clause for indigenous people, we are reaffirming their section 35 rights and we are meeting our UNDRIP obligations.

We also have to ensure that we do what is required to keep our communities safer. For me, the element of the bill that I am most keen to see us get right is to get ghost guns off our streets.

Law enforcement agencies across the country want us to act quickly. They have seen an increase in the use of ghost guns, and today we have an opportunity to respond to their request and ensure we do what we can to keep pace with criminals and hold them accountable. We have a chance to address unlawfully manufactured, unsterilized, untraceable firearms and their parts.

For those who do not know, ghost guns can be 3-D printed or modified using readily available kits. Blueprints for these guns are available online. People can download them and literally print them at home. With modern 3-D printers, they can produce a durable firearm capable of shooting hundreds of rounds without a failure. Combined with parts they can order online, they have a viable gun ready for use in crimes in no time.

I had the privilege of getting to know and hear from Michael Rowe, an inspector with the VPD. He has been a vocal advocate for dealing with ghost guns. He is among the experts in the world on this topic. He told our committee:

...one of my teams recently completed an investigation in which we executed search warrants on a residential home. Inside this home, we located a sophisticated firearms manufacturing operation capable of producing 3-D printed firearms. They had firearm suppressors and they were completing airsoft conversions—converting airsoft pistols into fully functioning firearms..

He also said:

...one of the trends we're seeing out here in Vancouver right now is the use of privately made firearms or “ghost guns”. During the gang conflict, we're seeing more ghost guns, specifically in the hands of people who are involved in active murder conspiracies or people who are believed to be working as hired contract killers

Let me be clear that the only people using ghost guns are criminals. There is no legitimate reason to have one.

When we previously withdrew amendments to Bill C-21, an important definition was removed, and I am so pleased that the definition is now back and supported by so many in the House. This definition will define firearms parts in the Criminal Code. Ensuring that those buying barrels, slides and trigger assemblies online are subject to the same rules as those buying guns will make it harder for criminals to hide. It will make it harder for criminals to make their guns at home.

The amendments that we have introduced to address ghost guns are yet another reason why Bill C-21 is so important and why we must get this passed. I believe strongly that all members here can agree that this growing issue needs to be addressed urgently. These ghost gun amendments received wide support from all members of our committee, and it is important to recognize that. It is a need that our law enforcement agencies have addressed and we must take it on head-on. Police services across the country have sounded the alarm on this and we have responded.

We have also introduced other provisions in the bill that are important and are aimed at fighting gun smuggling and trafficking. We are going to change the laws that will increase maximum criminal penalties and provide more tools for law enforcement agencies to investigate firearms. We have already made substantial investments and continue to invest in strengthening the RCMP's and CBSA's capacity to intercept guns coming across our borders. We know that it is working, because they intercepted nearly double the number of firearms coming in across the border than they did last year.

A lot of work is being done, but it is also important for us to remember all the people who have asked us for action.

Today, as I stand here, I am thinking of the important rights that we must preserve for indigenous communities. The ways of life in the north must be preserved. However, I also think of the victims of the Quebec City mosque massacre, of the Danforth families, of the Polytechnique families, of the women who go home and are threatened by intimate-partner violence, of those who turned to their firearms for suicide, and many more. So many of those are victims of gun violence perpetrated by legal guns. To them, we owe a responsibility, and for people like Ken Price who has been an advocate for those parents who will never see their child grow up and for the 17 kids at the mosque in Quebec City who lost their dads.

Every day that I walked into the room to debate this bill, in the back of my mind there was a thought for those and all that we lost as Canadians every time one of these incidents happened: the lost potential, lives cut short, the person who might have been the scientist who cured cancer, the Olympic skier, the friend we could count on when things got tough, the young woman who might have been prime minister, the families that will never be the same and the communities that have been torn apart forever. For them, we must do our part. It is not just about thoughts and prayers; it is actually about stepping up and taking action. If we do not, we will only have ourselves to blame the next time something terrible happened.

In every faith tradition, we speak of the preservation of life. In my tradition, the Quran says, “whoever chooses to save a life is as though he had saved all mankind.” I hope that in the House we will count ourselves among those who make that choice.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised to see the amendments that my colleague is tabling today at report stage. Perhaps my colleagues did not follow what happened in committee last week. We spent several hours together debating Bill C-21, and there was a good consensus.

Yes, the Conservatives used every five-minute period they had to rise to speak. They took turns so that new people were coming in and asking the same questions as their colleagues did before. In the end, they voted in favour of all the amendments for ghost guns. They also voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois's amendments to require a valid licence to purchase cartridge magazines. There was firm consensus on the yellow-flag provisions, in particular.

Today, the Conservative Party is saying that there is nothing good about this bill and that it wants to do away with the amendments. I do not really understand the Conservative Party's rhetoric.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be speaking to Bill C-21 yet again. Last week, the Liberals moved a time allocation motion in the House to limit our ability to debate this at committee. After that passed, and after they forced a closure motion on my ability to speak in the House on that time allocation motion, then time allocation came to a vote. They did not really like what I had to say and wanted to shut me up, which is why they moved the closure motion. This meant that, in committee, every party, but our party in particular, only had five minutes to discuss each amendment and clause. There were many amendments and clauses, and their impacts were very far-reaching.

The Liberals restricted us significantly on time in committee; Conservatives, having only that limited time, were sure to use every last moment of it. We were at committee until, I think, almost one in the morning on Thursday, doing our due diligence on this bill. The bill should have taken weeks to thoroughly examine and question the officials at length on. Our debate was severely limited in many important ways.

Again, there are 2.3 million lawful firearms owners in this country whom many of these measures in Bill C-21 will impact. Therefore, I know the firearms community and their families were deeply concerned about that debate, as well as the fact that the NDP and the Liberals, working together, severely limited it.

However, that was last week, and here we are this week. This is likely our very last opportunity to debate this in the House, and today is the report stage amendment debate. I moved a number of amendments in a last-ditch effort to really fight for the people who are wrongfully impacted by Bill C-21. These are the lawful and good Canadian people who are the target of the Liberal government. Meanwhile, criminals get away free with bills like Bill C-5 and the government's reckless and dangerous catch-and-release bail policies, which were brought forward in 2019.

That is all going on; meanwhile, the firearms community, particularly hunters and Olympic sport shooters, will be deeply impacted by what is happening with Bill C-21. We have made that very clear; they also made it clear when they had the opportunity to come to committee and put words on the record.

Today, with my limited time, I want to address a few of the issues the minister has brought forward in recent days to communicate on his bill, Bill C-21. There are a number of falsehoods, or at least things I believe he is not telling the whole truth on.

The first thing I would like to talk about is that the minister mentioned recently, and it seems to be his go-to talking point, that 87% of Canadians support him in what he is doing. We found out at committee from the parliamentary secretary that this statistic is from one poll. For Canadians who do not follow polls, it is mostly an inside baseball political thing. An average poll has about 400 to 1,500 people. Okay, polls do tell us a lot; however, it is one poll.

Interestingly, a few years ago, the Liberal government spent $200,000 on a public consultation on its gun control ideology. This consultation was on what it is trying to do with Bill C-21 and its so-called buyback program, as well as the secret firearms advisory committee coming forward, which will ban hundreds of hunting rifles in the coming months. A couple of years ago it spent $200,000 of taxpayer dollars and consulted about 133,000 people.

There were 133,000 people consulted. Let us say that the poll, which the minister is arguing is the reason he is claiming the support of Canadians to do all this damage on the firearms and hunting community, likely included 1,000 people. There were 133,000 people who responded to this consultation, and 81% responded “no” on the question of whether more should be done to limit access to handguns, while 77% responded “no” on the question of whether more should be done to limit assault weapons.

Of course, “assault weapons” is a term made up by the Liberal government. It is not a real term. The Liberals are trying to make it one. When they say “assault weapons”, we know they really mean things like hunting rifles and sport shooting rifles. We heard this first-hand from firearms advocates from the hunting, indigenous and sport shooting communities, notably Olympians.

Regardless of Liberals' using their tricky language, 77% of 133,000 people still said they did not want anything more done to limit assault weapons. Moreover, 78% said to focus on the illicit market. This is brilliant, because that is what police and anti-violence groups are saying. We know criminals are being caught and released because of this reckless bail system they brought in a few years ago.

Canadians overwhelmingly agreed that we should go after the illicit market. I will say this again: This was based on consultation with 133,000 people. That is what all the data and the evidence says would have the biggest impact when we are talking about reducing gun violence, which I think every single party and every single person in the House of Commons supports. It is just the way that they are doing it that is so contentious, so divisive.

It is not just one thing. The minister also mentioned that he is focusing on the border. Oh, the border—

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There are 13 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-21.

Motions Nos. 7 and 8 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 to 13 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 to 13 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I'd like a recorded division.

(Bill C-21 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In view of the answer that Ms. Mainville-Dale has just given, I understand that I should perhaps have proposed these amendments when we were examining the part of Bill C-21 that related to the Criminal Code, and that now, these amendments do not really apply.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Heeding the words of Mr. Blois and the idea of having “prescribed minimum participation requirements for training, competing and coaching” in these disciplines, as I've mentioned, other countries have exemptions for rigorous participation in sport shooting. Those countries have handgun bans. We have a handgun freeze. It seems to me that to have the government hear what Mr. Blois and others have been saying about the possibility of putting in place regulations that allow for future Olympians to participate makes sense, so I would suggest that NDP-19....

Mr. Chair, we've just had the closest vote on this issue that we've seen throughout this entire saga of a year now for Bill C-21. It was a tie vote that you had to break. I'm sure it was a difficult position you were in, but I think that is a message to the government.

This amendment would provide for some framework around the government to potentially look at the message they are receiving at the committee tonight from members of three of the four parties. I would suggest that adopting NDP-19 would allow for that rigorous framework, but would also allow for the government to perhaps examine, through regulation, how they might look at some of the issues that have come up around sport shooting.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you recognized, I am not a permanent member of this committee, so I didn't have the benefit of hearing all the testimony the members have heard throughout the study on Bill C-21 and, of course, on the proposed amendments. However, I want to give a perspective from my riding.

I certainly appreciate where Ms. Damoff is coming from and the idea that, if we open up exemptions too far, it could undermine the government's policy intention. I recognize it and appreciate it. I embrace the fact that we come from different parts of the country with different lived experiences and that we may approach this issue differently.

Let me be very clear: This bill has a number of very important measures and we need to get it through Parliament, because it would make a difference for public safety. However, I would be remiss not to speak to Mr. Julian's amendment, because I think there is merit in it. Whether it's through this amendment or not, I hope the government will consider ways to allow those competing competitively in other disciplines that are not Olympic sport shooting...such that there is recourse.

I will give you an example. Our former warden in the municipality of East Hants is Jim Smith. He appeared before this committee. He represents Canada and participates around the world in IPSC-related events. One of his colleagues was just representing Canada and lost a handgun. Air Canada, the airline, actually lost the gun. Right now, there's no recourse for that gentleman to obtain a new handgun and continue to compete.

There's a tension on both sides of this. I heard about the idea of a pile-on and I think that is legitimate. I think that has to be examined before we can move forward. However, at the same time, as Mr. Julian talked about, this is an internationally federated body. If there is one organization outside of Olympic shooters this committee and indeed this government should consider, I think it's IPSC.

Mr. Julian went to great lengths, I think, borrowing from some of the work Mr. MacGregor did, to highlight that [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I mentioned before that this is a policy area where the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party don't agree.

We had Ken Price from the Danforth Families for Safe Communities here. I remember Ken saying that it's a decision about how you want to move forward as a country.

The Liberal government has put forward a bill that will freeze handguns. We haven't banned them. We have put forward a freeze.

In fact, I will give credit to Ken Price. I remember very distinctly having a meeting with him. He said, “Look, I would love to have handguns banned tomorrow. We've had too much devastation on the Danforth, but maybe we freeze them and it will take them out of circulation eventually.”

The amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party would open this up. We've already allowed an exemption for a pathway for potential Olympians. However, even the International Practical Shooting Confederation said they expect their membership to grow considerably if there is an exemption that allowed it. The concern, of course, is that people who want to get around the handgun freeze will join IPSC.

Allowing an Olympic stream opens it up far too broadly. I know the New Democratic Party, and Mr. MacGregor in particular, felt quite strongly about this, but it's something we feel very strongly about too.

Ken Price said this when he was here at committee:

In terms of a control measure or being able to say what kind of gun should be used or not, or there being a risk that the number of those guns will grow because suddenly somebody is an IPSC elite shooter, we're just very skeptical that that could be managed. We think it undermines an objective we have.

Thank you to Mr. Julian for the work he has put in on this committee and on this bill, but this particular amendment is not one we're able to support.

I would also remind colleagues that handguns are not something that.... I think the vast majority of Canadians, when they're polled, support what we're doing in Bill C-21. I see that Mr. Kurek doesn't quite agree with me there, but that's the truth. When you ask Canadians whether they support a freeze on handguns, they do support it.

There is this idea that we need to expand what's in the bill after doing a review within government of the best path forward. We could have chosen a path that didn't allow this Olympic stream, but we decided that we would put this in there. There will be regulations developed on how that path moves forward.

It's very important that we move forward with this and that we decide what kind of country we want to be and how safe we want to be. While I know my Conservative colleagues don't agree with me on that, we feel that this is in the interest of public safety. I think we need to listen to what the Danforth families said and listen to what they went through with a gun in a gun-shop in Saskatchewan that was stolen. This isn't a gun that was smuggled across the border.

I'm sorry, but how much time do I have, Chair?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Just briefly, Chair, this is one of the central pieces of Bill C-21. It's a policy difference that we have with the Conservative Party of Canada. It's something we are quite proud to be introducing.

We won't be supporting this. It's something that, as a policy, we are deciding to move forward on. We won't be supporting this amendment.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ-14 again amends clause 36 of Bill C-21.

Its purpose is to offer no other choice other than to deliver the firearm to a peace officer, and it also establishes a 24-hour deadline for delivering a firearm, except in compelling circumstances.

However, I will not be moving it, because the intent of the next amendment, LIB-4, is somewhat the same, and it is less stringent. I therefore choose the Liberal Party's amendment.

I will not be moving amendment BQ-14.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to move CPC-21.

This is a very important piece. This is what we feel would define domestic violence, so I would like to read this into the record, Chair. I almost called you “your worship”.

The amendment is that Bill C-21, in clause 36, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 23 the following:

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), domestic violence means conduct, whether or not it constitutes a criminal offence, by a family member towards another family member, including conduct by or towards an intimate partner, that is violent or threatening or that is part of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member or intimate partner to fear for their safety or the safety of another person, and includes:

(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement, but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect themselves or another person;

(b) sexual abuse;

(c) psychological abuse;

(d) financial abuse;

(e) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;

(f) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property;

(g) harassment, including stalking;

(h) the failure to provide the necessities of life; and

(i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property.

I won't say any more about this. I think this is an important amendment, and we'll see what my colleagues and roommates in here feel about this themselves.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ-12 deals with clause 36 of the bill. It talks about revoking permits in cases of acts of domestic violence. I believe this amendment is better written than several amendments that are trying to do the same thing—for example, amendments NDP-7, NDP-8, NDP-9, LIB-1, LIB-2, PV-4, PV-5, and PV-6. Those amendments are trying to do the same thing in several parts, while amendment BQ-12 does everything in the same amendment. I think it might be useful to proceed with this one.

In fact, amendment BQ-12 strengthens the measures to protect victims of spousal or domestic violence, and stems from a request made by the National Association of Women and the Law.

In its present form, Bill C-21, and particularly clause 36, provides that the chief firearms officer must revoke an individual's licence if they are "convaincu" that the individual has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking. In English, the chief firearms officer must "determine" whether such an act has taken place, which seems somewhat vague.

What I am concerned about is that the chief firearms officer is being given broad discretion: to determine whether they are satisfied that there has been domestic violence, or not. Here again, I think we should err by an excess of caution when there is this kind of risk.

I like the way the National Association of Women and the Law addressed this question, by saying it is important to recognize that a false negative, that is, failing to identify a domestic violence situation and not removing the firearm, is often more probable and can have more tragic consequences than a false positive. They said that the threshold is too vague and too high. It amounts simply to adding some items to section 70.1.

The bill as it now stands says: "If a chief firearms officer determines that an individual who holds a licence has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking, the chief firearms officer must revoke the licence."

I am therefore proposing that Bill C-21,in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 37 on page 23 with the following:

70.1 If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual who holds a licence may have engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking, the chief firearms officer must revoke the licence within 24 hours.

That really does strengthen what the chief firearms officer may do in cases of spousal or domestic violence, where they have reasonable grounds to suspect such a case.

Because this came up several times during consideration of this bill, which was a good thing, we have all come up with somewhat the same idea. Given that the NDP, the Liberals and the Green Party have made the same proposals, I hope they will be able to support this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

BQ-11 proposes that Bill C-21, in clause 34, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 22 with the following:

they shall suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The intent of this amendment is to strengthen the section that instructs the chief firearms officer to refuse or revoke a licence where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been involved in acts of domestic violence.

The underlying intent of clause 36 of Bill C-21 represents a crucial improvement for women's safety, since its purpose is to create a provision that asks the chief firearms officer to refuse or revoke a licence for a person who engages in domestic violence. We understand that the chief firearms officer is being given discretion to determine, subjectively, whether there has been domestic violence or criminal harassment. However, I believe it should be circumscribed, in this case. The goal of this amendment is therefore to remove the chief firearms officer's discretion and require them to suspend the licence, rather than making it an option.

So it simply replaces "may suspend" with "shall suspend". This is how subsection 69.1(1) would then read:

69.1(1) If a chief firearms officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have collected or received from any person, that the holder of a licence is no longer eligible to hold the licence, they shall suspend, in respect of that licence, the holder’s authorization to use, acquire and import firearms for a period of up to 30 days.

As I said, it simply removes the chief firearms officer's discretion. What we have heard from women's shelters and groups representing women is that it would protect women's safety better. I think it could have a positive effect.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is identical to amendment NDP-5, in fact, so I imagine that my NDP colleague thinks somewhat the same thing as I do.

Thank you.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thanks, Chair. Let me just check my handy list.

Indeed it is another “firearm part” coordinating amendment to continue the good work that we were doing last night to make sure that all parts of what we're doing in Bill C-21 are complying with other acts. This is to do with ghost guns, and let's vote yes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It will be relatively simple. For my colleagues who have just joined us, yesterday we unanimously adopted a number of amendments to require a valid licence for acquiring a cartridge magazine as is required for ammunition. There are still a few amendments to coordinate with that objective.

I am therefore proposing that Bill C-21 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 21 the following new clause:

30.1 Subsection 64(1.2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(1.2) The holder of a licence that is extended under subsection (1.1) must not, until the renewal of their licence, use their firearms or acquire any firearms, ammunition or cartridge magazines.

Everyone should support this amendment, which coordinates with the previous ones.

Thank you.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks so much, Chair, and thanks so much to the committee members.

Everybody should have a hard copy. Basically the change now is going to happen in subclause 18(0.1).

I move that Bill C-21 in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 17 with the following:

Paragraph 19(1)(b) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (iii):

(iii.1) wishes to transport the firearm to another individual or business who holds a licence authorizing that individual or business to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms for purposes of storage for the time necessary for the individual to address a mental illness or similar problem, or

Then it says at the bottom of that:

(1) Subsection 19(2.1) of the Act is replaced by

As I discussed last night with those committee members who were here, the purpose of this is to provide that clarity to the firearms community, so that they understand that if they're dealing with a mental health challenge, especially for veterans dealing with PTSD and others, they have an ability to have their firearm temporarily stored with another appropriately licensed individual. It's important they know that this is an option that's available to them and that it's quite clear to them. Then they can seek the help they need and not turn away from it.

As well, it provides initial clarity to our chief firearms officers across the country to know that this is an avenue, and from my discussions with the officials, especially within the firearms program, it would likely help them from a prioritization standpoint to address these types of requests when they come in.

I'll leave my comments at that for now, Chair.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to see you, Mr. Shipley.

My amendment deals with subclause 30(3) of Bill C-21. It reads as follows:

Authorizations to carry referred to in paragraph 20(a) are not valid outside the geographic area set in the authorization by Commissioner. Authorizations to carry referred to in paragraph 20(b) are not valid outside the province in which they are issued.

That creates two different ways of dealing with authorizations to carry, for paragraphs 20(a) and 20(b).

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

However, we saw something relatively unique in the House of Commons today.

We amended some commas and words in Bill C-13. Ten motions were introduced by the government after the same work was done as we are doing here for Bill C-21.

I draw your attention to this because I want to make sure the same mistake isn't made. I would like us to make sure that the meaning is the same. This is a law, and there has to be as little as possible that needs to be interpreted and argued in court. I think it is important to point this out, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 67 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022; therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, May 9, 2023, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

I would like to remind all members regarding some specific sections of the motion adopted on Tuesday that have an impact on clause-by-clause consideration.

Amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

No more than 20 minutes can be allotted for debate on any clause or any amendment moved. These 20 minutes are to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment. At the expiry of the time provided for debate on an amendment, the chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment forthwith and successively without further debate.

If the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. The chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill.

Before we proceed, I would now welcome the officials who are once again with us. From the Department of Justice, we have Sandro Giammaria, counsel; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program; and Rob Mackinnon, director, Canadian firearms program.

Also, I would like to welcome the officials from the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, who are not at the table at this moment. From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Jeff Robertson, manager, inadmissibility policy unit, strategic policy branch. From the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, we have Pascale Bourassa, acting director general, directorate of security and safeguards; and Pierre-Daniel Bourgeau, counsel, legal services. These officials will join us at the table and be available to answer questions when we study the relevant clauses. CNSC is relevant to clauses 49 to 51. CBSA is relevant to clauses 52 to 63 and 67 to 69.

Thank you, all, for joining us once again. Your participation is critically important to us.

I note that Mr. Calkins followed by Mr. Julian are on the speaking list. Before we go into that, we have a couple of housekeeping items.

(On clause 15)

The first one is on NDP-1. The amendment of Ms. Damoff has a couple of grammatical concerns. I will ask the clerk to mention them. Perhaps we can change them on a unanimous consent basis.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk, please.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, which is an important one. This is such a busy time for the House of Commons.

Tomorrow, we will deal with third reading of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages.

On Monday, we will resume report stage debate of Bill S-5, which would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, we will be dealing with report stage and third reading of Bill C-21, which, as we know, is the firearms legislation.

Thursday, May 18, will be an allotted day.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Monday, May 15, for the consideration in a committee of the whole for all votes under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

[Peter Harder]

The Senate made one technical amendment, which was a coordinating amendment with regard to Bill C-21, to ensure that whichever bill was enacted first, there was a complementarity of action allowed. However, we made no other amendments, nor were any proposed, either in committee or on the floor of the chamber.

The view of the Senate was that this was urgent, necessary and not to be done quickly, which we did a year ago.

[Peter Harder, Senator, Ontario, PSG]

Thank you, Chair. I hope I don't use all of my five minutes, but I appreciate your signals.

This is an “S” bill, which means it originated in the Senate. It is a government bill, and it is not unusual for government bills to be tabled first in the Senate, although it's not a practice that takes place often. This bill was first introduced on May 17 of last year in the Senate and dealt with at second reading on May 19. It went to committee for consideration on June 3 and June 9.

We heard from approximately 19 witnesses, from both officials and other interested groups, and returned the bill with one technical amendment, which coordinated this bill with another bill that was before this chamber at that time, Bill C-21. The final reading took place on June 16, and Bill S-8 was unanimously accepted in our chamber, and hence sent here.

The bill before you is viewed from our chamber as an urgent piece of legislation, a necessary piece of legislation, which allows for sanction-related inadmissibility grounds to be treated in a cohesive and coherent manner. It will strengthen inadmissibility legislation that we already have in place, rendering designated persons who are subject to Government of Canada sanctions inadmissible.

In addition to that, it has further coordinating mechanisms that are important in the view of the government. I believe you had the officials from departments concerned here. I would urge this committee to deal with this bill expeditiously so that this gap in admissibility can be addressed. This is not only urgent with respect to Russian nationals, but it is universal, so it will deal with nationals of other sanctioned regimes, including, obviously, Iran.

I'm open for questions.

Again, the sponsor's role in the Senate is to shepherd the legislation through the Senate and in committee, and to work with colleagues and, ultimately, the government to ensure that the bill's carriage is both appropriately timed and succinctly and appropriately addressed by the Senate of Canada.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity. Usually we have the benefit of the House of Commons reflection before we get a bill. Now you have the opportunity for what we call “sober second thought”.

Firearms

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions here. First of all, the petitioners wish to convey their sorrow for the fellow officers, the friends and the families of those involved in the tragic event earlier this morning.

These petitioners want Bill C-21 stopped in its tracks. It would do nothing to stop the real problem of gun-running and leaves a gaping hole that would remain as long as it is in force. The petitioners therefore call to either end the bill now or revoke the law if it gets that far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

What we are constrained by is the order things happen in Bill C-21. If we vote past the point where it should go into Bill C-21, then we would require unanimous consent to go back. Anyway, I would advise you to talk to the clerks to see what can be done going forward.

Mr. Julian, you have some time.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm just looking for where it needs to go in the bill. Can the officials provide what clause we should be sliding this into in the amendments? I don't think there's anything other than the preamble or the first sentence that needs to change in the language. It just needs to say it under the right part of Bill C-21, so it slides into the act in the right spot. Is that correct?

I'm just looking for that clarity from the officials.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for my 20 seconds.

Look, if we can bring this forward further down in the bill, I'm good with that. I would just ask the clerks to draft this solution to it. If it's in the wrong part of the bill, that's fine, but if we're already past that part of the bill, I'm in a bit of a pickle unless the committee agrees and we're going to get the support for it that we can change it.

If I understood the officials correctly, that's what they're saying. Where we're trying to slide the actual change into Bill C-21, it's in the wrong spot in the Firearms Act. I'm completely open to having it fall under the ATT portion if we can still move that as an amendment later on in the debate.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I do thank Mr. Ruff for bringing this forward, because I know his intentions are indeed admirable. He is trying to find a way to ensure that people who don't want to have their firearms when they're having a mental health crisis have the ability to store them somewhere else.

I wonder if officials could clarify. I understand that an individual can obtain an ATT for temporary storage. It would still apply after Bill C-21 comes into effect. That would include if they were going on a cruise or if they were having a crisis.

Could you perhaps explain what is in place, confirm that it will be in place after the bill comes into effect and explain what the process would be? Maybe you could refer to where Mr. Ruff could find this in the regulations, please.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For those who have just joined us, BQ‑8 is an amendment that is consistent with BQ‑3, which is intended to add the requirement to have a possession and acquisition licence to acquire a magazine in the same manner as ammunition. Three amendments have already been unanimously adopted by the committee. This amendment is really clear.

Therefore, I propose that Bill C‑21 be amended by adding after line 9 on page 18 the following new clause:

21.1 Section 25 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 25(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) A person may transfer a cartridge magazine that is not prescribed to be a prohibited device only if the individual holds a licence authorizing him or her to possess firearms.

This amendment is in the same spirit as the previous amendments. Its purpose is to request that a valid licence be required for the acquisition of a magazine. I hope that my colleagues will be consistent with previous positions and will be able to vote in favour of this amendment.

Thank you.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

BQ‑6 deals with the same subject matter as NDP‑2 and G‑1. I imagine my NDP colleague will be in favour of this amendment, which strengthens the “yellow flag” system.

We were fortunate to have representatives from the National Association of Women and the Law. This association also sent a brief, where a very good point is raised. Here's an excerpt:

The modification to section 5(2)(d) of the Firearms Act is also recommended to insert a safety bias into the granting of licences. A person may not currently pose a threat to their ex-partner (for example, if they are travelling abroad), or it may not be certain whether a person still poses a risk; when in doubt, the Chief Firearms Officer or the judge should err on the side of caution.

That's sort of the spirit of my amendment. We have to make sure we err on the side of caution, rather than the side of judgment.

Therefore, I propose that Bill C‑21 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 16 the following new clause:

15.1 Paragraph 5(2)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(d) is or was previously prohibited by an order — made in the interests of the safety and security of any person — from communicating with an identified person or from being at a specified place or within a specified distance of that place, and poses or could pose a threat or risk to the safety and security of any person;

I invite my colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment, which strengthens the “yellow flag” system designed to protect women victims of violence.

Thank you.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I completely agree with my friend, Mr. Lawrence.

I think the principle of Bill C-21, as we're developing it, is putting the focus on going after criminals, those who are using ghost guns and untraceable weapons, not legal gun owners who are showing respect for the law.

There is a surprising consensus, an almost Kumbaya moment developing around this table, which is a wonderful thing to see, Mr. Chair.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

It has to do with the automatic revocation of licences. The original proposal as it was in Bill C-21 was to define which protection orders, because not all of them.... Some of these, as my colleague was speaking of, are outside the Criminal Code and in provincial courts. It was to look at what protection orders were the ones that were related to domestic violence, intimate partner violence and gender-based violence in which an automatic revocation of a firearms licence would apply. That's therefore why it's necessary in the Firearms Act: to go along with the revocation provisions that are in the bill.

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

This definition relates to other parts of amendments to the Firearms Act that are in Bill C-21 and that would expand licence revocation for certain situations. Where somebody becomes subject to a protection order, it would automatically revoke the licence rather than making it a condition of, for example, when you were talking about release and peace bonds and whatnot.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

First, I’d like to thank the entire technical team, including the clerks and the people who helped translate this subamendment. I am grateful to them.

I wanted to thank the entire team that is supporting us tonight. I wanted to do it at the beginning of the meeting, but unfortunately I haven’t spoken much since the beginning. We’ve already had the staff, interpreters, analysts, legislative clerks, and technicians with us for a little over four hours, and they’ll be here for nearly another four hours. As I said yesterday, it’s a pleasure for members to be here, but there’s a whole team behind this, so I want to take this opportunity to thank them.

I am pleased to see that the subamendment has been translated and distributed in both official languages. I also welcome Ms. Damoff’s subamendment. It’s important to respect Quebec and the provinces’ jurisdiction, and to respect their right to consult. That’s what this subamendment adds to the very reasonable amendment proposed by the NDP, which is to add a definition of the term “protection order” in Bill C‑21. The Bloc Québécois will therefore vote in favour of this subamendment.

Thank you.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm happy to speak to it, Chair.

It's similar to the other amendments we had.

Colleagues will remember that Michael Rowe from the Vancouver Police Department appeared on our study of Bill C-21. He spoke about the need to take action on ghost guns and he provided us with recommendations. Those are the recommendations that we've added as amendments. Two of them were adopted unanimously. One was on printing and one was to add the two words “firearm parts”.

Once again, these are coordinating amendments that are adding “firearm parts” to ensure that the Criminal Code reflects those original amendments that are taking action on ghost guns.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

It's in general and not related to Bill C-21.

How are the breaks working? We're here for nine hours. When do we have bathroom breaks and when are we having eating breaks?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

My comments were not about SECU. They were about the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, to which we are bound.

We have done all kinds of things in all committees that I've been on that have kind of pushed the boundaries sometimes. I'm just trying to get everybody to focus on what we're doing here today. We're trying to get through Bill C‑21.

I'm a night guy, so I'm okay. I can go until four in the morning on Friday; that's fine. If we can be efficient with our time, we can get through this and get it done.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

The priority of ghost guns was not reflected in Bill C-21 in any way prior to these amendments being introduced.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

It was not a priority of Bill C-21 to do anything concerning ghost guns. Is that correct?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

On that point, just to confirm, the original format of Bill C-21 that we had before these amendments were introduced did not include provisions on ghost guns. Is that correct?

[Rachel Mainville-Dale]

This is a new clause to add.... This was not something that was originally foreseen in Bill C-21. However, when the decision was made to make amendments for ghost guns, including firearm parts, it's adding all of those consequential amendments to various parts of the Criminal Code.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that very clear explanation.

Mr. Chair, were we explained that in some other context? I know there would have been a technical briefing on the original Bill C-21, but this wasn't included in that. Arguably, if it was included in the original bill, perhaps I could have had enough forethought to ask about this, but it was not. Was there an opportunity to have heard what we just heard from the official at some other time that I just don't recall?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In clause 13, we're updating the offences for which law enforcement is able to obtain a wiretap. In the bill, originally we were proposing to add the offence of “altering a cartridge magazine” as established in Bill C-21, “possession of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized” and “possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition”. The amendment we are proposing here is to add the newly created offence of “possession of computer data” to the list of offences that law enforcement would be able to seek a wiretap for.

This, again, refers specifically to the ability of criminals to print 3-D versions of ghost guns. Hopefully, given that there is widespread support for this on this committee and certainly among law enforcement, we will be able to dispense with all manner of shenanigans and get this thing passed quickly.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-21, in clause 11, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 15 with the following:

ceased to exist or were unfounded.

Again, these concern yellow flag laws, and I know that there was...although I was in the House dealing with the time allocation motion that was forced on us by the Liberals and NDP to limit our discussion today, and likely tomorrow.

In the few minutes that I have to discuss this, now that I am here, I'll note that of course there were a number of concerns we heard from witnesses about red flag and yellow flag laws, and I found that very concerning.

You'll remember, Mr. Chair, that when this bill was first brought forward by the Liberals, or the second iteration of it was first brought forward about a year ago, I moved a motion in the House to split out the red flag and yellow flag provisions. I did that so we could take the politics out of it and quickly usher this part along, because of course I would support, particularly as a woman, provisions to ensure, in cases of domestic violence or threats, that women in vulnerable positions, particularly indigenous women and others, are protected and better protected from those who wish to do them harm.

That was shouted down by the minister when I tried to take the politics out of this. However, interestingly, when we brought it to committee, I was very surprised to learn that those with far more expertise in this regard did not fully support these provisions, or support them at all.

Groups like PolySeSouvient, one of the most notable anti-gun groups in the country, did not support this at all—quite assertively. In fact, I was interested to learn that on Twitter they gave us a shout-out yesterday in support of our position on red flag laws. I never thought I'd see the day, but I did appreciate the honest support from them in this regard and that we do, in fact, align on certain things. That was a good moment to see.

We also heard from a number of indigenous leaders, notably women and women chiefs who came to committee to speak to this and Bill C-21 in general. Of course, they did not support Bill C-21 in any form, but in particular, they had concerns about the red flag and yellow flag laws.

To summarize what they said, the indigenous communities who came to committee—certainly some of them whom I heard—felt that because of issues of racism and other things, folks who are malevolent toward a given indigenous person or indigenous community could use the provisions in this bill against them to take away their firearms arbitrarily, without real reason. That is the sentiment I heard, and Conservatives and others heard, while at this committee.

We have a number of quotes supporting that from the people whom this was supposed to support in the first place, so I find it difficult for us as a committee to bring forward something that was supposed to support these groups when they're saying they don't want it at all.

There were a number of other reasons given. This is just my summary of the sentiments that I felt from them.

I know the quotes were read yesterday, but it's certainly surprising that the Liberal government and the NDP.... The former person from the NDP who was dealing with this certainly signalled to me that they would not be supporting these measures because of what we heard. With the NDP in particular, that seems to have changed, and it's not clear why. I don't believe a clear case was made for why the NDP is no longer listening to the stakeholders we heard when they came to committee.

Furthermore, we heard from Women and the Law, which I believe was a Liberal witness. I could be corrected. They are law experts, from a woman's perspective in particular. They were brought to committee, not by our party, and did not support these measures either.

There was also a French group from Quebec that stands up against violence against women. They did not support these measures.

We heard from a number of women's groups who did not support these measures, saying they put way too much onus on a woman, the very people, I believe the intention was, that these measures were going to support.

I don't understand how in good conscience we could support this as a committee when the very people these measures were designed to support do not want them. They didn't want them quite strongly—not just subtly, but out there publicly at committee and on social media.

I'm not convinced the committee is doing the work to protect the most vulnerable when these measures were meant to do that. As I said, I was originally supporting them until I heard from the people that they were meant to support. We cannot support them without the support of the vulnerable, whom they were supposed to help, so we will be voting against them again today.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

We have an amendment to propose in this regard.

Mr. Chair, it's the first amendment that I'm moving, so I'm not sure if I'll get the procedure right, but I will read it, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

I move that Bill C-21, in clause 11, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 15 with the following:

117.012 A provincial court judge shall, on application by

In essence, it changes “may” to “shall”.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be supporting this amendment. I did want to flag that, in previous sessions of this committee around Bill C-21, we had similar questions to those the Conservatives just asked. I wanted to flag that, and I will be flagging it.

In the case where there is new information, I am certainly inclined—as are, I believe, the rest of my colleagues—to allow for an extension of the 20 minutes. In the case where the Conservatives are asking questions to which they have already received answers, it is pretty clear that the intent is more to draw things out than to elicit new information.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That's understood. I think we all supported that and appreciate the severity of this and the need for it, certainly. This committee has been talking about ghost guns for the past year and a half that I've been on it.

Again, my concern is that additional parts may be added that folks are not aware of. The message I am taking away is that the main parts are being added—barrel and slide. That's important, but the government could add any other component of a firearm, and people should be aware that they will not be able to.... They should be very careful when possessing parts without a PAL after Bill C-21 passes. Is that an accurate thing about which to warn the public?

[Sandro Giammaria, Counsel, Department of Justice]

Sure. Thanks for the question.

In a previous motion, which I believe was carried, that term is defined expressly. If Bill C-21 becomes law, it will come to mean a barrel for any firearm or a slide for a handgun.

There is also an opportunity for the government to prescribe parts to add to that list. Let's say, for example, a part is identified as specifically amenable to the creation of a ghost gun. That part can be particularly isolated by regulation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the House order of Tuesday, May 9, 2023, the committee is resuming its consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

I would like to remind all members of some specific sections of the motion adopted yesterday that have an impact on clause-by-clause consideration:

(ii) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(iii) not more than 20 minutes be allotted for debate on any clause or any amendment moved, to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment, and at the expiry of the time provided for debate on an amendment, the Chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment, forthwith and successively without further debate....

The motion continues:

(v) if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on the second day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill....

Before we proceed, I will welcome once again the officials who are with us today. From the Department of Justice, we have Sandro Giammaria, counsel, and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program; and Rob MacKinnon, director, Canadian firearms program.

Thank you all for joining us today. Your participation is very important for the committee.

Finally, with regard to the speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person. The clerk also has timers for each party, and we will rack up the times that each party has spoken.

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a respected critic for public safety. We talk about surprises, and I was surprised.

I wonder if he could tell the House why he was removed as critic and why the leader of the NDP removed him at the height of Bill C-21, seeing as he represents rural Canadians so well in his riding, and replaced him with the NDP House leader, who is really an urban MP. I wonder if the member could explain that logic to the House.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to disagree with the principle that I think is behind the parliamentary secretary's remarks and question.

Of course, amendments are always welcome, and they should be informed by feedback received from the public and committee, but I have to draw the line at the particular amendments that were introduced in November because those took everyone by surprise, and not just the committee members. They took indigenous communities by surprise. They took hunters and farmers by surprise. It was such a huge overreach from the bill we originally thought we were debating at second reading. When we started debating Bill C-21, its main provisions were on airsoft, red flag laws and a handgun freeze.

I want to take a moment to also thank members of the committee for passing my amendment on airsoft. That amendment was passed, and I am happy to report to the airsoft community that the offending section of Bill C-21 has now been removed, thanks to an NDP amendment. That is definitely a bright light in this whole journey.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to find the words to start given how long I have personally been involved with this piece of legislation. I know there are a few select members of this House who would agree with me. I think for each one of us, this has been our own personal odyssey, and to get to this point is really remarkable. All of the different twists and turns that this one bill, Bill C-21, has taken are going to be studied in parliamentary procedure for years to come.

I have had the privilege of representing my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for three terms, now being in my eighth year, and I have discovered that in my time here, Parliament has demonstrated that it is indeed the last place to go for an open, honest and logical debate on firearms. A lot of the debate we have seen on this bill and on firearms regulations, policy and legislation in general has done a very real disservice to Canadians. Both sides of the issue have torqued up their arguments. There has been blatant misinformation and labelling, and this has really descended the level of debate into something that I think a lot of Canadians would quite rightly be disgusted by. It is very difficult in this place, when we have all of these torqued up emotions and political agendas, to have a reasoned debate on firearms. That certainly has been the story.

I know a lot of people on Twitter are following this debate very closely. I would say that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is probably the most watched committee of them all, and I know that my words right now are being analyzed and tweeted about, even in real time. I just want the people who are listening to brace themselves, because I have equal amounts of criticism for both the Liberals and the Conservatives as to why we now find ourselves in this place.

I first want to start by talking about the committee, because ultimately today's motion is one of instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. One could be forgiven for thinking that all this committee does is study policy and legislation surrounding firearms, because that is indeed all it has really been consumed with since the bill was referred to the committee late last year. In fact, we started Bill C-21 at committee in October 2022, and here we are now, well into May 2023, and we are still only at the clause-by-clause part of the bill.

I think it is useful for people to understand what the mandate of this committee is. It is responsible for reviewing legislation, policies, programs and expenditure plans of a whole host of different government departments and agencies that are responsible for not only public safety, but national security, policing, law enforcement, corrections, the conditional release of federal offenders, emergency management, crime prevention and of course the protection of our borders. When we are doing things like the estimates for the spending plans of Public Safety Canada, quite often we have representatives included from the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Parole Board of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

What I am trying to underline here is that this committee is an extremely important committee of the House of Commons, and all the work it does in all of these different areas in looking after our intelligence gathering, law enforcement and border protection has been sidelined by the incredible amount of time that has been consumed. Time is our most valuable resource in Parliament, and once we spend it we do not get it back.

Because of the shenanigans that have occurred with respect to Bill C-21, the public safety committee has quite correctly been prevented from examining all of these other different areas, keeping tabs on those different departments, examining different pieces of legislation and keeping tabs on what the government's policies and practices are going to be with respect to other key areas. That is an important element that we first need to establish when we are talking about where we are today.

As many members will know, including members in my own community, I used to be our party's public safety critic. I found my time on that committee to be personally quite valuable. I found that the subject matter we were dealing with was quite intellectually challenging and stimulating, and it is important work.

I know from my interactions with other members of the committee, whether on the Liberal, Conservative or Bloc Québécois side, that they all conducted themselves very well, and I enjoyed my working relationships with them. That even goes for our work on Bill C-21.

Believe it or not, there was actually a time when Bill C-21 was progressing through committee in relatively good order. We concluded roughly eight meetings with witnesses. The committee then had time to come forward with its amendments, and there seemed to be an acknowledgement that aside from a few differences with a few clauses here and there, the bill was probably on schedule to be reported back to the House for report stage and eventually third reading sometime in December.

We then got to November, and all hell broke loose. This was when the eleventh-hour amendments were dropped by the Liberals. I should correctly say “the Liberal government”, because I do not think they were, by design, from the Liberal members of the committee. They did come from the government.

I do not want to go into the details of the bill too much, because I think that is a well-trodden path and a well-known story, bu allow me to take this moment in my speech to levy what I think are some well-earned criticisms on both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I know some of my colleagues will probably laugh at this, particularly the member for Hamilton Centre, because he has heard me joke about this before.

I often feel like the character Mercutio in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, when he is expressing his frustration with the Capulets and the Montagues, because I feel that same frustration with the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is difficult sometimes to watch the shenanigans between those parties and the way our level of debate around this issue descends into the depths and scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

Let me start with the Liberals. One day, someone is going to write a book about this sorry episode, and it is probably going to be titled something like “How Not to Amend One's Own Legislation”. It is going to be a warning guide for governments in the future on what not to do and how not to spring a surprise on an unsuspecting committee when they have not done their homework, when they have not done consultation and, most importantly, when they have not consulted with the members of the committee who are actually responsible for shepherding those amendments through.

I want to caution members: My comments are not, in any way, directed to the colleagues I work with, but more to the Liberal Party brain trust. I understand the reasoning behind where they are coming from. Gun violence in our major urban centres is a very concerning thing. It needs to be dealt with appropriately. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extreme grief that is out there within so many families who are dealing with a loss due to firearms violence.

Sometimes the road forward for the Liberals has been paved with good intentions, but it has led to some pretty awful results. I would ask them to step back and try and heal some of the wounds that exist in that divide between urban and rural Canada. We need to understand that yes, firearms violence is a big issue, but there also has to be a level of respect afforded to Canadians who are lawful firearms owners, who play by the rules and who have done everything right. I would encourage the Liberals to consult more with their rural MPs.

When the Liberals introduced those amendments, one of the groups that were leading the way was indigenous communities—not only hunters and farmers, but indigenous communities, not the least of which was the Assembly of First Nations. In an extremely rare move, the AFN came out with a unanimous emergency resolution on the last day. That is almost unheard of. They were going after the government for those ill-thought-of eleventh-hour amendments.

No consultation had taken place. One could make a legitimate argument that the Liberals, in bringing in these amendments, were not respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or even the legislation we have passed that enshrines that within our own laws to make sure that all federal laws are in harmony with the declaration itself. It went against the spirit of that.

Now I will turn to my Conservative friends.

What do we say about the reams of ridiculous hyperbole we have seen from that party on Bill C-21? The bill has been a fundraising boon for the Conservative Party. That giant sucking sound we hear is Conservatives hoovering money from the harvest of their rage-farming operation around the bill, and I think a part of me wonders whether the Conservatives do not want to see the bill go forward because it has been so financially viable for them. The evidence is all out there. I do not think there is any interest at all in trying to move the legislation forward, because doing so would essentially stop the goose from laying golden eggs for them. It has been an incredible money-maker for them.

When I look at some of the misinformation that has been put out by the Conservative Party around the bill, I see they are fanning flames of rage over amendments that no longer exist and incorrectly saying that the government wants to take away all their guns. It is just completely off-the-wall bonkers stuff that can be easily disproven, and it is completely not helping the standard of debate we expect of our parliamentarians. It just makes the rest of our jobs harder when we have to fight that completely untrue disinformation that is being actively fanned on social media.

Yes, it is a sorry state due to the actions of both parties in so expertly playing politics with the bill, and that is a large part of the reason we are here today.

We know that the problematic amendments were withdrawn by the Liberals. That is fact number one. All current owners of long guns in Canada are not going to have those firearms impacted, because the problematic amendments were withdrawn. What we now have being proposed as an amendment to the bill would go after firearms that will be manufactured in the future, after the bill receives royal assent. There is also an important amendment, I understand, that would make sure that nothing in the bill takes away from the rights of indigenous peoples. That is recognized and affirmed under section 35 of our Constitution.

Of course, there are incredibly important amendments dealing with the exponentially growing problem of ghost guns. This is a problem that has been brought to the committee's attention repeatedly by law enforcement agencies. I would hope that more attention is paid to those particular amendments, and of course we, the remaining members of the House of Commons, have to reserve our judgment on the bill until we see the final version that the committee ultimately reports back to us.

Now let us turn to the motion of instruction and what it would do.

First of all, we have to understand that as of this morning, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had already spent approximately five hours on clause-by-clause consideration. If they had been able to complete their meeting this afternoon, and I know it was interrupted by a series of votes, that would have brought the total to eight hours, which is roughly equivalent to four full meetings. The motion being debated today would add a further 17 hours to that, bringing it to roughly 25 hours, which is the equivalent of 12-and-a-half meetings.

I understand from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, our member on the public safety committee, that he has tried multiple times to extend the sitting hours of the public safety committee so that Conservatives, the Bloc and New Democrats could have additional time to look at the amendments that are being proposed by various members. I understand that in each of those instances, these attempts were either rejected or filibustered so that the committee ultimately could never get to a vote. To hear Conservatives complain that they are being silenced in the House when they have, in fact, had multiple opportunities at committee to extend the sitting hours of that committee does come across as a bit rich.

I would say that because I have had my staff look at bills similar in size and complexity to Bill C-21, Bill C-18 comes to mind. That particular bill, when it went through clause-by-clause study at its committee, had seven meetings, the equivalent of 14 hours, for clause-by-clause study, so that is more than enough time to get through it.

I know from my own experience, because I used to be a member of the public safety committee and have seen a lot of these amendments, that are a lot of them are very technical, small changes to the bill, especially the parts that deal with ghost guns. Not a lot of debate is going to be required on them. In fact, the committee can probably get through them in short order because they are repetitive and many different areas of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act have to be updated to make sure that those existing statutes are in harmony with each another.

The other thing I want to turn to in my final three minutes goes back to the earlier part that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the overall mandate of the public safety committee. We have two really important pieces of legislation waiting in the wings, waiting for their turn to be examined at the public safety committee. They are Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.

Bill C-20 is going to create our first-ever public accountability and transparency network that is independent of the RCMP and the CBSA. In fact, the CBSA has never had an independent oversight mechanism. Looking at the public safety committee's report from the previous Parliament looking at systemic racism in policing and looking at all of the instances of injuries and sometimes death that have happened to people who had been in the custody of the CBSA, we see that these are important measures. We have had so many racialized Canadians, so many indigenous Canadians who have been calling out for these types of oversight measures for years. Why should those pieces of legislation continue to be pushed back while we draw out this process on Bill C-21?

Bill C-26 is an important piece of legislation, which I will be the first to admit needs a lot of work at committee, but it is going to really bring in line a lot of the cybersecurity requirements that are needed for some of our critical sectors, be they in banking, transportation, energy and so on. It is going to be a requirement for many of those private actors to bring their systems in line with a standard that is acceptable to the federal government. Again, a lot of work is needed, but no one in this House can deny or absolve themselves from the fact that these are important issues that deserve to have their turn at the public safety committee.

My ultimate motivation for this motion today is to get Bill C-21 on its way. We have had enough time at the committee. It has occupied so much time at the public safety committee, and it is time for the public safety committee to move on to other bills that are equally important to many other Canadians.

In conclusion, I ultimately am going to reserve my judgment on Bill C-21 until I see what the committee reports back to the House, but I will not agree to let that committee continue to be bogged down, especially when there is so much other important work to be done.

With that I conclude. I welcome any comments and questions from my colleagues.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot predict the future. I do not know how the Conservatives will use the upcoming committee meetings or how they will use their time in the House when the bill returns. I cannot say in advance. I suspect that they will not support this bill. Is that a reason to reduce our speaking time on each amendment?

I have important amendments that I would like to move. Women's groups spoke to us. They want more protection. They do not feel protected by some elements currently in Bill C-21, which were introduced by the government.

We must take the time to debate these amendments properly. That is not what the government is proposing at this stage by claiming that the Conservatives could try to slow down debate. That is democracy. We must have a debate in committee. We must take the time to study this bill, which all my colleagues have said is very complex. It is not unusual to have questions for officials every time an amendment is moved.

I believe we must take the time needed.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I noted several elements in that question.

I do think it is unfortunate that the debate is being rushed through. I thought that the study in committee was constructive, that we were asking officials and the government the right questions and that we had time to debate amendments.

There is one interesting fact that I did not mention, which is that Bill C-21 is not a huge bill. It has 74 clauses. The party that moved the most amendments was the Liberal Party. That shows just how unprepared the government was to table this bill. Why did it not wait a little longer? Why did it not hold consultations all across the country in order to table a sturdy bill without having to amend its own bill? That is rather curious. We would not be here if the government had been more prepared. We would be working with the opposition parties' amendments, and there were a reasonable number of them. I do not know if I am allowed to say how many amendments were moved by each party, but it was a very reasonable number. I find that unfortunate.

I heard my colleague mention consultations. He believes that the Conservative ridings were not necessarily consulted and that the minister did not visit them. I do not believe that he came to any Bloc ridings either. Is that a coincidence? Let us say it was random. That said, I know that the government wanted to do better. However, as I mentioned, these consultations should have taken place at the outset, before Bill C‑21 was even introduced.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is dishonest to spread this information during the debate. I am not saying that the government is beyond reproach. After all, its original intention was to lump all guns together, whether they are used for hunting or not. It has backed down. That is good, and I applaud that. Now we need to take action.

Those members' actions are not contributing to the debate at all. I am not afraid to call out the Conservative Party, because it is members of the Conservative Party who are using social media to scare people. Just yesterday, one of my colleagues was talking about how the Bloc Québécois was going after hunters, and he said that the motion we are debating today was another attack on hunters. I had no choice but to tell him that what he was saying was wrong. Sometimes people are good at playing with the truth and coming very close to lying, and sometimes it is just a lie. That is dishonest. I am talking about what is being said on social media, not here in the House. It does not contribute to the debate.

Let us be clear about what Bill C-21 does at this point. As I said, right now, hunting guns and air guns are off the table. This bill is about something else entirely. I want to be clear about that.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was just in committee to debate Bill C‑21. I left so that I could come give this speech here, since the House is considering a government motion to speed up work on the bill.

The government claims to be moving this motion because the Conservatives are filibustering and trying to slow the work down at every turn. That is odd, because I have been on this committee for several years and I have seen the Conservatives engage in filibustering. However, this is not what I am seeing in committee right now. Everyone is acting in good faith.

When I asked a question earlier, I spoke briefly about the bill's history, but I will now speak about it in more detail. Bill C‑21 was introduced on May 30, 2022. In a few days, it will be one year since the bill was introduced. One would think that one year is enough time for parliamentarians to debate this bill, hear from experts in committee, conduct consultations and study the bill clause by clause. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.

Initially, this bill was about handguns. In the aftermath of a mass shooting at a Texas primary school, where several children were killed, the government rushed to introduce this bill saying that, at least in Canada, something was being done to counter gun violence.

The introduction of this bill was accompanied by a national freeze on handguns. When government officials announced this bill, they were backed by groups that supported the legislation, groups that want better gun control. These groups were behind the government when it made this announcement because it had made a promise to them. These groups, which were advocating for a ban on assault weapons, were told that the bill as it was drafted at the time did not cover assault weapons, but the government promised them that it would amend its bill to address both handguns and assault weapons.

The Minister of Public Safety and even the Prime Minister, if I am not mistaken, made that commitment, and those groups were hopeful that Bill C-21 would actually reform gun control in this country.

The government did amend its bill. It had made that commitment more or less publicly. Let us just say that it was not our understanding that the government would be amending the bill to ensure it addressed assault weapons. We were focusing on handguns.

In committee we heard from experts who talked about the impact of this handgun freeze in the country. Bill C‑21 deals with many other things. I am thinking in particular about the “red flag” provision and the family violence protection orders. There are some rather interesting things in Bill C‑21 and they could actually change things. That is what we were debating when parliamentarians were able to be heard in the House. That is what we were debating in committee. We wanted advice on these provisions from experts who appeared in committee.

In November, when this whole process ended, the government arrived with its infamous amendments on assault weapons. We are not talking about a minor amendment. It was some 400 pages of amendments. It was quite thick. The government presented these amendments saying that this was its measure for banning ghost guns, in other words, homemade guns. People order different parts online, build the gun at home and then take it out on the street. The government told us that the purpose of the amendment was to address that problem. We were okay with that. It is a growing phenomenon in the country.

However, we noticed that the amendment was a bit more complicated. It talks about a definition of banned assault weapons. I have to say that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of that. We have been calling for that for a long time, and it has been part of our election platforms. We have been calling for a ban on military-style assault rifles. We do not think that people should have weapons like that at home or that they should be on our streets. Civilians have no reason to have those kinds of weapons. We are not talking about weapons that are used for hunting, for example, so we are happy to see that a definition has been proposed.

The caveat is that the government is proposing a definition but then, in a schedule, it is proposing to include a list of hundreds of firearms in the Criminal Code.

When we have questions for the government, the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security are unable to answer a single one of our questions. They do not even know what they just tabled, what is in it, what impact it would have or what weapons are included. There was an outcry. Picture it: The Conservatives are asking questions, the Bloc is asking questions, the NDP is asking questions; everyone is trying to find out more about what is on this infamous list. The officials were supposed to support us in studying the bill but, in the end, they were answering for the Liberals, who were unable to explain their own amendments.

What we came to understand was that the government was trying to include weapons in the Criminal Code that were already banned by the order in council. The list included weapons that have been banned since 1990. It included firearms that were banned as a result of the 2020 order in council, which covered about 1,500 models of firearms. Others were added later. Close to 2,000 weapons are now covered by this order in council. The weapons covered by the 2020 and 1990 orders in council are part of the list.

We realized that there were about 482 new models that are legal right now that the government was trying to include in the Criminal Code. We thought that was odd. The government could have done this through an order, as it did for the other firearms, but it wanted to include this nearly 400-page list in the Criminal Code.

The list was rather difficult to understand. If a gun owner wanted to know whether their gun was going to be banned, they could do an electronic search for that model in the virtual document. If their gun came up in the search, they would be in a complete panic, thinking that the government wanted to ban that weapon.

However, from what we understand about the way the list is written, there were exceptions. As the officials explained to us, there were introductory paragraphs. There were lists of models of firearms, and then there was a paragraph that said “with the exception of these models”. People were finding their firearms on the list and thinking they were going to be banned when that was not actually the case.

There was also quite a bit of confusion about the definition itself. People thought that a gun with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules would surely be prohibited. In Canada, the firearms that were banned by the 1990 order in council often met this criterion. Normally, these firearms were already prohibited. This created a lot of confusion. It is not surprising that people were afraid that their legally owned firearm would end up on this list. I would add that the gun lobby did not really help matters by spreading disinformation, which was then picked up by the Conservative Party. Hunters across the country were convinced that the firearms they use to hunt would be taken away.

After asking the government repeated questions, we figured out that there were indeed some firearms on this list that were supposedly problematic, in other words possibly used for hunting. We were not able to get clear definitions for either a firearm used for hunting or an assault weapon designed for a military context. The government could not provide any clear definitions. We said that these weapons could all be lumped together. Some are reasonably used for hunting. Consider, for example, the SKS. This weapon was created by the Soviet Union around the time of the Second World War. It was created for a military context and was used during that era in a military context.

Today, it is an affordable gun that is popular among hunters and indigenous people. We figured that it ended up on the list because it is technically an assault weapon, but it is reasonably used for hunting. For its part, the government tells us that this gun was used in some shootings in Canada, and therefore, it needs to be banned. There were no clear definitions, however. The government was unable to say why this type of gun needed to be banned and another type did not. This caused a great deal of confusion for everyone. We told the government to scrap this list. We asked it to come back with a new proposal, because no one was happy about this one.

The Bloc Québécois made a suggestion. Since a lot of people did not get the opportunity to be heard on these new amendments, we said we should invite them to committee and reopen the study, so these witnesses could at least tell us how they would be affected by this bill, if passed.

The committee members agreed. We decided to hold four meetings so that we could receive indigenous groups, hunting groups from Quebec, Ontario and just about everywhere, and so on. Alberta's chief firearms officer came to testify. Gun control groups obviously came back because they had not been able to share their thoughts on assault weapons when we were only talking about handguns.

These people came back to testify in committee. When we asked them whether they had been consulted by the government before these amendments were introduced, they told us that they had not received a call. They had not been consulted at all, whereas normally, when the government decides to introduce new legislation, it does some work beforehand to meet with those concerned, to see how they can work together. It tries to determine whether the bill will work for them. The experts know the subject, they are the ones who are on the ground. They can point us in the right direction, or in a direction that is potentially acceptable. However, we were told that the government had not done any consultations.

The government was feeling a lot of pressure from all the parties, but also from within its own Liberal caucus. Some Liberal backbenchers had obviously not been consulted about the amendments. Some members who represent rural ridings did not agree that firearms that could reasonably be used for hunting should be considered restricted weapons under the Criminal Code. The pressure was mounting.

In a dramatic turn of events, in February, the government withdrew its amendments on assault weapons. We were left wondering whether we should continue to study the bill as it stood or whether we should wait. The government said to wait because it wanted to work on something. It wanted to reintroduce a definition of prohibited weapons and therefore a definition of assault weapons, and it wanted to hold consultations.

The minister travelled around Canada a bit. He met with indigenous groups and hunting groups to find out whether they agreed with him. It seems the consultations were not very positive. However, the minister did his job. It was a bit too late, but he did it. In my opinion, he should have done that from the start.

It took several meetings, weeks even, before the government came back with a new proposal. Last week, the Minister of Public Safety made a big show of announcing that he would return with a definition of prohibited weapons. As I said earlier, the first amendment also included elements about ghost guns, and everyone agreed on that. He also announced new complementary measures.

In our negotiations with the government, we understood that certain things can be done through legislation, through a bill, specifically Bill C‑21, but it is not always so straightforward. Other changes need to be made through regulations, and the minister is the only one who can make regulations. Oddly enough, the same day he announced that the amendments were being reintroduced, he also announced that he was going to do some things by regulation, including a proposal that the Bloc Québécois had made on how firearms are classified.

I put this question to several witnesses who appeared before our parliamentary committee. Currently, a firearm can be sold on the market in Canada when it should be classified as restricted or prohibited. The RCMP will eventually realize that it is on the market. Why is it not the other way around?

I believe that the RCMP should approve a firearm and ensure that it is above board before it is put on the Canadian market. The process should be similar to the one for pharmaceutical companies. I believe that when a pharmaceutical company wants to put a new drug on the market, it must be approved by Health Canada before it can be sold. I made that comparison because it seems to me that it would be another safeguard that would prevent new, unauthorized firearms from being on the market.

The minister made another rather interesting announcement. He announced that he was going to enact regulations on high-capacity magazines. That is one of the things the Bloc Québécois has been asking for. Many gun control groups have been asking the same because although a gun is designed to hold a magazine with five rounds, it can accommodate a magazine with 30 rounds. The magazines are often universal. This becomes fatal if the person holding the gun wants to kill several people in a very short amount of time. We felt that these high-capacity magazines needed to be prohibited. The Minister of Public Safety told us that they were already illegal in Canada, that it was not supposed to be like that.

What we learned because several groups told us and we saw it ourselves, given that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recently visited the RCMP vault, is that some magazines can be blocked with the help of a small rivet. For example, a magazine with 30 rounds could be blocked and limited to five rounds. The magazine therefore becomes legal because it is technically a five-round magazine. This was still on the market and still legal. In some of Canada's well-known shootings, the gunman simply removed the rivet to create a high-capacity magazine and that cost the lives of dozens of people. We then said that this type of magazine needed to be banned. I am very pleased that the minister has made that commitment, but now he needs to follow through. It is nice to promise things, but I expect these regulations to come into force quickly.

The minister also said that he would re-establish the Canadian firearms advisory committee. He is proposing to do so because it seems that when the government was considering what to do about the banned firearms and wanted to put the 482 models in the Criminal Code, there was a small lapse in political courage. The minister was unable to make a decision and said he would re-establish this advisory committee, appoint experts, people who support gun control, hunters and indigenous people and then ask them to make a recommendation about firearms classification, for example. He could then make a regulation or issue a new order in council.

That seems promising. We have always said that firearms classifications should not be up to politicians. This committee's mandate should be clear. The committee should be established quickly, it should make its recommendations quickly and the minister should move quickly.

As I said at the start, the Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of banning military-style assault weapons. By proposing his new prospective definition that will only apply to weapons that will come onto the market in the future, the minister is leaving 482 weapons on the market that he initially wanted to include in the Criminal Code.

The Bloc Québécois said that we needed to find a reasonable and acceptable solution. The government determined that approximately 12 of these weapons could potentially be used for hunting. It should have its committee look at them to figure out how to classify them. As for the remaining 470 weapons, the minister can ban them by order as of tomorrow. He can even do it today if he wants to. He does not need the House's approval to do that.

If the government is really serious about banning military-style assault weapons, it can do so immediately by order. That is what the Bloc Québécois recommends. That is the proposal that we made to the minister. I suggested that in a private conversation that I had with him. We said it in the media. We made the suggestion a number of times in a number of places. We made the suggestion publicly and I think that it is a reasonable one.

It really bugs me when the Conservatives argue that Bill C‑21 and today's motion target hunters in Canada. That is not true. Thanks to pressure from the Bloc Québécois, that list was taken out of the Criminal Code. What we are saying is that the government needs to ask its experts what to do about weapons used for hunting. As for the other ones, though, the government should ban them immediately.

I do not think taking those kinds of intellectual shortcuts and fearmongering serves the debate. People are writing to their MPs. My Bloc Québécois colleagues tell me about the people who write to them. These people are worried. They have heard a Conservative MP give a speech or do an interview, and they are worried their hunting gun will be banned. They think the Bloc Québécois supports that. That is not the case. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's work, hunting guns were taken out of Bill C‑21. I think that is good news for hunters. Maybe more people need to know about that, which is why we will try to play a bigger role in this debate.

There is also good news for airsoft fans. Two days ago, we got air guns taken out of Bill C‑21. The government wanted to ban them. This is good news for them too.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say on a personal note that I do greatly miss the member at public safety. As the NDP lead, I found him to be more reasonable. He was strong in his own convictions, but he was reasonable to work with. I am just learning how to work with the new member, and I am hoping for the best. However, from the rhetoric, I have some concerns about what he said about Conservatives so far, because these things are not factual or true. However, I will get to that in a second.

In terms of what the member said on rural communities and the RCMP, I agree that we have to talk about oversight. However, the member has to send that question over to the Liberals. How dare they put the committee at a standstill for months? That is not on us; that is on the Liberals. They did this, and I know that he agrees, because he said as much. Again, the member's question needs to be directed to the Liberals on why they made this situation at committee on Bill C-21.

Overall, on the idea that Conservatives have voted down the new NDP member's efforts to extend sitting, and there have been two times that he has done that, when the Liberals delayed this, the minister made us wait six weeks to get started, and there were shenanigans. Again, we could have been done this probably before Christmas actually, because we were going quite well throughout Bill C-21, even though we did not all agree. We would have been done before Christmas. That is on the Liberals.

However, now that the bill is back, he was suggesting that we have to go all the way to midnight today, tomorrow and then Thursday. Why would the committee members and the interpreters and everything else that goes into it have to do nine hours straight three nights in a row because the Liberals held this up, because the Liberals blew this up? That is on them. All those questions need to be directed to the Minister of Public Safety and the Liberal parliamentary secretary.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things to point out. The list, first and foremost, may have been withdrawn from public scrutiny, but we have heard from the Liberal parliamentary secretary that it is going to go over to this so-called expert firearms advisory committee. Yesterday in the House, she said that they will look at what they should ban from that list. Those were her words. Therefore, I do not think the list is gone; it is just going to an unelected advisory committee with less transparency. The committee will have meetings in the dark behind closed doors, so to speak, so there is that.

I think part of the member's question was in response to the Liberal member who asked me the first question, and I would agree with most of her assessment. The committee has been working very well. Had the Liberals not been so sneaky with their underhanded amendment in November, we would have been past Bill C-21 a long time ago. This is on the Liberals for being underhanded and sneaky, bringing forward the worst amendments to attack hunters in generations, at the 11th hour in committee. That is not on us; that is on them. They dragged this out.

The minister then made us wait for six weeks. Now we are resuming. They call what the Conservatives have done a filibuster. The NDP lead on committee has spoken more than almost anybody else; I will make that very clear. It is ridiculous. Therefore, I reject completely that this is on the Conservatives. It is the Liberals' fault that we are in this mess with Bill C-21. People just have to look at the committee record to know that.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which she started yesterday. I applaud her public speaking talent.

I agree with her on many of the points she raised, but I disagree on others.

I agree that the reason we have reached this point is that the government has been unable to do the work people need it to do. Bill C‑21 was introduced a year ago. The amendments went back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security last week. We have really only been working on Bill C‑21 for less than a week so far.

Suddenly the Conservatives are filibustering. Things are not moving fast enough and this is urgent. The government is the reason it took so long. I agree with my colleague on that. However, I do not agree that this motion and Bill C‑21 as written are still anti-hunter.

She asked officials some questions. She is well aware that the government backtracked on the infamous list it tried to put in the Criminal Code. At this point, Bill C‑21 does not affect hunting guns.

I would like to know if she agrees on that much at least, because it is a fact.

[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.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague from London that, as he knows, we have been working with rural communities and first nations communities right across the country.

In fact, I have spent a good, considerable period of time with a number of experts in gaming and hunting in the Yukon, where I had a chance to see how they participate in their traditions. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the way in which they participate in their traditions in a way that is safe and secure. I have also assured them, as we have done with indigenous communities, that this bill would reflect their lived experiences. What does that mean in plain and simple terms? It means that this bill would not target them. Rather, it would go after criminals. It would go after AR-15 assault-style firearms. Yes, it would implement a national freeze on handguns, because handguns have been growing by approximately 55,000 new registrations every year and they have concurrently become the number one type of gun used in homicides.

Those are the types of evidence-based, informed policies that are in Bill C-21, and that is why it would help save lives.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are at least two serious mistakes in the premise of the Conservative member's question. The first is that we are not going after criminals. In Bill C-21, as I have just mentioned, we would raise maximum sentences from 10 to 14 years for illegal gun traffickers. That is an important and powerful signal to anyone who would try to terrorize our communities that they will run the risk of going to jail for a longer period of time.

The Conservative member also referred to prevention. That is precisely what the government is doing with a $250-million building safer communities fund. I would point out that the Conservatives have opposed the building safer communities fund's allocations, which will save lives through prevention by providing mental health services and other supports for people who are at most risk. The Conservatives are also against Bill C-21, which would give law enforcement the additional tools to go after criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. That is why their position is so misguided.

On this side of the House, we are doing the work. We are making sure that we pass responsible gun control legislation, but we are also taking action at the border and advancing strong prevention strategies.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem with gangs and violence. Violent crime is skyrocketing. We are talking about Bill C-21, which talks about taking legal guns from legal gun owners.

I want to ask the minister, since the government uses evidence-based policies, what percentage of crimes are committed by people with illegal guns, and what percentage are committed by people who have actual legal guns? The answer to the second is going to be zero. After 35 years in policing, I know that answer. Why not put that money into education programs and forget Bill C-21? Scrap Bill C-21. It would not be effective.

I agree that we need to have gun laws, but the government is targeting people who have legal guns. Why not go after the ones who have illegal guns, the criminals?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe that is the intent, although he can't actually make a motion to do so because we're engaged in this motion.

I think we require unanimous consent to withdraw the motion. If there is no objection, we can consider the matter withdrawn.

Is there any objection to Mr. Julian withdrawing his motion?

(Motion withdrawn)

The motion is withdrawn. We will therefore carry on with clause-by-clause on Bill C-21.

We left off at the last meeting at the end of clause 2, and we're starting clause 3.

(On clause 3)

First up is Mr. Noormohamed, with G-11.

Please go ahead, sir.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I find it interesting as well. As my colleague Mr. Shipley indicated, the resources tonight are difficult. We are sitting in the House until midnight and there are other committees that are sitting late as well. Again, I find it astounding that we would consider a motion for which we don't even know whether it's going to be possible to sit past our 6:30 time slot.

In any event, why is it necessary to be in the spot that we're in? Why did Mr. Julian feel it was necessary to put a motion forward?

I want to reiterate and correct his assertion that we're not halfway through. If you look at the amendments before us, there are 25 of them that add the words “firearm part” in the clauses coming forward. I don't see that taking 20 meetings.

Let's actually talk about the meetings. On January 31, there was no meeting and no good reason was given for why we didn't have a meeting. February 3 was the meeting where the amendments were withdrawn, so we know why we didn't have a meeting on January 31. On February 7, we did the Russia study, not Bill C-21—

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I understand that.

Again, parliamentary procedure is not always my strongest point. We have people who can do that type of thing.

This is how we got here in the first place, by dropping amendments at the last minute that weren't reviewed properly. This has happened a couple of times now, as far as the Conservatives are concerned, and it's happened a couple of times with major amendments.

Today we're getting a motion that might happen, it might not, but we're sitting here wasting time when we could be on Bill C-21 talking about whether we're going to go again.... I'm getting tired of putting the cart before the horse. I'm here to do work. I'm here to do what people elected us to do, and that is to pass good legislation.

Mr. Chair, once again I'm a little frustrated and I wanted to voice that concern.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to talk about Bill C-21 and to really stand up against it.

Getting an honest answer from the minister is difficult. We have tried. I remember being the one in SECU who actually got the witnesses to admit that law-abiding hunters' firearms were on the banned list. The Liberals have tipped their hand, and most firearms owners across the country know that. I have spoken with Liberal members of Parliament who do not necessarily like the way their own government is going on firearms.

This is really a call-out to the NDP. I just heard members from the island. I have been to the Campbell River Gun Club, where people brought huge concerns forward around Bill C-21 and the freedom to access their legally obtained firearms. Again, these are citizens who are vetted on a daily basis. The stats support that people who have a firearms licence are far less likely to commit a crime than an average citizen is. These are impeccable citizens being shown complete disrespect by the Liberal minister.

Again, my question for the New Democrat members is whether they will finally stand with their constituents and oppose this legislation.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

We have all kinds of time tonight. I love spending time with my colleagues well into the evening. There's no issue, but we're sitting here now and we're talking about trying to get through Bill C-21. Right now, we're talking about a motion that you just said we don't have resources for. Why are we doing things backwards again? Why don't we jump into Bill C-21 and get through this?

What is the point of debating a motion that we don't have the resources for? Maybe the chair can illuminate me on that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Michaud and Mr. Paul‑Hus are right, an English word was left in the French version inadvertently.

I want to say that I'm proud to speak French and that, in the past, I have pointed out French errors in texts submitted by the Conservative Party and even the Bloc Québécois. I feel a little awkward having introduced an NDP motion with errors in it.

If we also remove the words that are repeated, the French version of the motion reads as follows:

Que le Comité prolonge sa réunion du 9 mai 2023 jusqu'à minuit pour faire l'étude article par article du projet de loi C‑21.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't intend to speak for a long time. I know that Bill C-21, particularly the issue around ghost guns, is something that law enforcement wants to take immediate action on. We need to move forward in a forthright manner.

I have a motion that was circulated to committee for the purposes of today's meeting. I move:

That the committee extend its meeting of May 9, 2023, until midnight for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21.

Mr. Chair, I heard yesterday in the House something that I felt was profound disinformation. It was said by the Conservative public safety critic that almost half of the amendments had been considered at committee, and that's simply false. As you know, Mr. Chair, since we started again, we've considered 12 amendments out of 151. You can do the math, as I have, Mr. Chair. I note that, at this rate, we simply would not have this bill back to the House for months.

Why is it urgent? We know, because of the delays.... These delays were caused by what I felt were the Liberals' misplaced amendments, which were done without consultation. Now we have the Conservatives filibustering, so they're also causing a delay. During that time, Mr. Chair, we've seen an exponential increase in the use of illegal, untraceable ghost guns across this country.

The House is seized by an expansion of scope, which will be important, but we need to provide law enforcement with the tools. We need to be targeting criminals. The withdrawal of the amendments means that those who would be targeted by this Bill C-21 are criminals, not law-abiding gun owners. It's important that we move in a forthright way.

I've been raising this issue, as you know, Mr. Chair, for a couple of weeks now, to vastly expand the number of hours. The committee has the ability to do that. I'm proposing that we do just that for the purposes of today's meeting—to meet until midnight.

I hope we can come to a consensus rapidly on this. I don't intend to draw it out if there are members who are opposed, but I do believe that it's an important step that we need to take for public safety. We need to move this bill forward, and we can't do that if it continues to be stuck in the committee.

Since it's taken so long to consider the initial amendments, it's important that we allow more time today for clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. That's what I'm proposing. I hope we have a consensus around this table about the importance of studying Bill C‑21 and passing it to combat the threat of ghost guns. The study has dragged on long enough. Now we need to move forward. That's why I'm introducing this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 65 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

I will now welcome the officials who are with us once again.

Welcome. It's always good to see you.

From the Department of Justice, we have Sandro Giammaria, counsel; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; and Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program.

Thank you for joining us once again today. Your participation is, of course, crucial to our deliberations.

I will now invite Mr. Julian to take the floor, please.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on this side of the government aisle is correct. The vast majority of Canadians, approximately 80% of Canadians, support a national ban against AR-15 style, assault-style firearms. They support a national freeze on handguns.

Handguns have become the number one type of gun used in homicides. Canadians support and want to see action that will allow us to reverse the disturbing and alarming trends of domestic abuse and the presence of guns. Again, women are disproportionately victimized as a result of the presence of guns. We want to reverse those trends.

We want to save lives, which is precisely why we need to move forward with Bill C-21. Were it not for the Conservatives who continue to obstruct and obfuscate, we would be able to do that more quickly. That is why we are taking the step that we are today, and we will continue to engage with all Canadians so we can keep them safe.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to the ongoing efforts by the Conservatives to stoke fear, we respect gun owners, farmers and the first nations communities who use firearms responsibly. I have engaged with all of them, and we have gone to great lengths to make sure we are weaving their experiences into our laws.

Therefore, rather than stoke fear and disinformation among Canadians, it would be far more productive if Conservatives were prepared to have a debate based on facts, not fear. That is what we are doing with other parties in this chamber, including the NDP and the Bloc, and I want to thank them for their collaboration on Bill C-21.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the observations I have made during my time in this place is how much the Liberal government loves to hinder Canadians and their freedoms.

We saw Bill C-11 get rammed through the House. We more recently saw how Beijing interfered in our elections in this country. An hon. colleague of mine, and his family in Hong Kong, were threatened and intimidated, and the government did nothing. We have seen the government move time allocation on bills over and over again to ram them through.

Specifically, with Bill C-21, we see a government that wants to take away rifles from hunters, again wanting to thwart the freedom Canadians have, and not entrust them with the tools for a basic lifestyle. I am curious as to why the government is so distrusting of Canadians.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked very closely with my friend and colleague, the member for Surrey—Newton, when it comes to keeping our communities safe.

As he knows, we recently made an announcement in his riding that will provide additional grassroots support to the organizations providing mental health services, educational supports and career supports, especially to those young people who are at the greatest risk of being exposed to gun violence.

I want to emphasize that this is a government that is squarely focused on three priorities when it comes to reducing gun violence: strong borders, strong laws and enforcement, and strong prevention. Together, with the support of a number of other opposition parties, it is my sincere hope that we will pass Bill C-21 so we can put in place strong gun control laws to save lives.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would want to go to great lengths to speak extemporaneously from my knowledge of this file. I will tell members, though, that, with regard to Bill C-21, there have been 15 meetings, 79 witnesses and approximately 40 hours spent, despite the fact that, at various junctures in this debate, we have seen the Conservatives filibuster in an effort to stop a responsible rigorous debate on gun control laws in this country.

This is not the first time this has occurred. This is consistent with a pattern of obstruction and obfuscation by principally one party in the chamber, which is the Conservatives. We want to protect Canadians, and we believe that, by passing Bill C-21, we will promote responsible gun control and save lives.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am, in principle, opposed to closure motions. I do recognize that Bill C-21 has been in front of the House for a long time, and I understand the difficulty that the larger parties have in sorting out how to work collaboratively in the interest of efficient handling of the legislation in this place.

Does the minister not think it would be helpful if Parliament decided to obey the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracies around the world and not allow written speeches? It is my view that, if members had to speak based on their knowledge of the subject matter, it might narrow down the field of the number of speeches we hear.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your ruling on this.

As I said before, the Liberals and the NDP are preparing to quash debate on Bill C-21, limit opposition to only five minutes per amendment and then force votes. As I said, over in the PMO, there is a Prime Minister proud of the basic dictatorship that he has created for himself.

When the Speaker of the House made his ruling, and in that ruling supported a prima facie case of contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, it gave me hope and it ought to give Canadians hope.

The Speaker of the House and I are no different. We are two MPs, elected by our constituents to represent them here in Ottawa. We are both doing our best with the skills and experiences we have. We know that we have to go back to our constituents, face them and account for the decisions that we make in this place.

I speak here today with some hesitancy, as we are not immune to the intimidation that was faced by the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills and other members of the House. I know that speaking on this important topic opens the possibility of being put in the sight of the Communist government in Beijing, much in the same way that I can imagine the Speaker of the House had and was possibly thinking about when he drafted this decision.

For me and those in law enforcement, we have faced these decisions before. Back in the years I was in policing, I faced threats and intimidation, but I always knew that my brothers in blue had my back. There was a sense of being protected from those who wished me harm because we were a team, a family.

In this place we are a family too, but recently the trust that is needed to rely on each other as a family has been eroding. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and its cross-party membership is now in a unique position to rebuild that trust. It will need to look past party differences, just as the Speaker of House did and has been able to do. It will need to take the required time, debate openly and review the situation. It will have a chance to send back a decision that shows support to the MP for Wellington-Halton Hills and other members of the House who have faced the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao on behalf of the Communist government of China, as well as the others who could possibly could face that, moving forward.

This committee can show Canadians and the Beijing Communist government that, although we disagree on a lot, and I mean a lot, when it comes to protecting Canadian democracy, we are all unwavering. That would send a clear message to Beijing to stay out of our politics, and a strong message to all members of the House that we have each others' backs. Will we admit that we are susceptible to foreign interference, or will the Prime Minister instruct his coalition to continue to cover this up, to steamroll the committee, as they seem eager to do when it comes to domestic policy such as the example I gave with Bill C-21? Will the committee show the world that we are fractionalized with a system of government that can be influenced from the outside? Will the Prime Minister utilize his control through the basic dictatorship he has been building in China's likeness?

I hope that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have the same sense of honour and good conscious that the Speaker of this House showed in the prima facie decision he made.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, the question was this: Why should we care? We should care because we have something to lose. We have a delicately crafted democracy. It is not perfect, but we are proud of it and it is a democracy that we built together and one that we are proud of as Canadians. However, it is fragile. Threats to our democracy are real and they need to be treated as such.

We have heard stories over the last number of weeks about the intimidation tactics that Canadians from China and Canadians with family in China faced in the last election. We have had a member of the Liberal caucus leave the party among allegations that he was part of foreign interference by the Chinese Communist government. He stands accused of having a hand in delaying the return of Canadians held in China because it was politically valuable to the Liberal Party. Now, we have the Conservative MP for Wellington—Halton Hills reveal that he and his family were targets for the Chinese state interference in 2021.

Why, though, did the Government of China want to ensure that the Liberals won the last election and, in fact, the last two elections? Here is why. The Conservative stance on the Chinese Communist government was too principles-based and the resolve of our party was too strong to be advantageous to foreign interference. The Conservative position was in line with 53% of what Canadians believe, which is that the government's response to China in recent years has not been strong enough and that more needs to be done. In fact, a recent poll from the Angus Reid Institute shows that 69% of Canadians believe that the government is scared of standing up to China, including 91% of past Conservative voters, 62% of past NDP voters and 46% of those who have mistakenly voted for the Liberal Party at some point in their life.

Let us not overlook the recent activity with spy balloons that are in Canadian airspace and how our Prime Minister has little to say about the ongoing situation. We know that foreign interference can undermine the integrity of democratic processes, such as elections, by attempting to sway voters or influence political outcomes. We live in a country where corporations cannot legally provide any funding to political candidates. Individuals are limited to contributing $1,700 annually. The reason for this is to prevent our politicians from being bought off by the big money of special interest groups and wealthy individuals. Canadians themselves can only contribute $5,000 to their own campaigns and yet Liberals think that it is okay for the Trudeau Foundation to receive $200,000 from two businessmen identified as being linked to the Communist government in China. That is utter, absolute nonsense. For those listening at home, the House ethics committee is probing a $200,000 donation given to the charity by two men with links to the Chinese Communist government. The committee is deciding whether the donation was an attempt by Beijing to curry favour with the Prime Minister.

If we can just for one minute cut through the political rhetoric and admit to ourselves, like all Canadians already have, that we know this money was intended to buy favour with the Prime Minister, ignoring the reality would be willful blindness on all of our parts. We are sent here to represent our constituents, Canadians, but also to defend our Canadian democracy. If the members opposite need to wonder why they are here or why they cannot stand in their places and say that, when a foreign government that the Prime Minister admires so openly donates a six-figure sum to a foundation in the name of his father and run by his brother, it is at best inappropriate and at worst foreign interference.

This is not just any country getting uncomfortably close with our Prime Minister. It is among the worst in the world for a government's treatment of ethnic minorities, shown by its treatment of Uyghurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners. If at any point we want to see how far the Prime Minister's admiration of the Beijing leadership goes, we can just ask him to stand up for Uyghurs, Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners in a meaningful way when meeting with Chinese leadership. He will not. He is afraid. He is afraid that he will offend the country he so admires.

The ruling of the Speaker of the House is an important first step, but now the committee needs to be allowed to do its job, which is a tall order with this government. It seems that whenever a committee is trying to do its duty for Canadians and thoroughly investigate or review bills, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners find a way to strangle the committee and steamroll democracy.

Here is an example of that: I sit on the public safety committee, and we are currently reviewing Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. It has been in front of us for quite some time. When Canadians hear that we have been at this for months, it may seem slow, but in fact, we are simply doing a job of government. The government put the bill forward as a handgun bill and then, in a move that can only be seen as averting democratic process, stuffed the bill full of other unrelated amendments, completely changing the scope.

What happened when we brought this it up? It was steamrolled by the Chair in a unilateral decision that it was in order when, in fact, we know it was not. That was upheld again by the Liberal alliance when we challenged the Chair. The Liberals and the NDP are preparing to quash debate on that bill and limit the opposition on each of their amendments to five minutes per amendment and then force votes.

Over in the PMO, there is—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of quick questions to make sure we're all on the same page.

The first thing is that my colleague, Madam Bendayan, brought forward the issue of the problem of Bill C-21 and a concordance issue, to make sure that we weren't superimposing an act over something that had just been changed. Do you know of any other acts that we may need to make amendments for in this act to make sure that we are not tripping over ourselves, as well?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

During the debates in the Senate, Bill S‑8 was amended to prevent conflicts with Bill C‑21, the government's firearms control bill, which is very important to me and that I worked on a great deal.

Could you please confirm to the committee that, following the amendments by the Senate, there are no further conflicts between Bill S-8 and Bill C-21?

Firearms

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, there they go again; Conservatives are trying to stoke fear. If my colleague had actually read the amendments that are part of Bill C-21, he would have seen that we included a non-derogation clause specifically for indigenous persons, but he did not read them. Instead, the Conservatives are just filibustering. They are about their record of putting cuts to police budgets. They are about weakening our borders.

On this side of the House, we are going to keep our communities safe by strengthening our borders, by putting more resources into law enforcement and by passing strong gun control laws.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, that is exactly what the government is doing. Last week, I was very proud to see that members of our caucus had put forward amendments to Bill C-21 that would strengthen the national ban that the government put into place on AR-15 style firearms, which have absolutely no legitimate recreational purpose in any of our communities. It is only the Conservatives who continue to put forward policies that amount to legalizing AR-15 style firearms. That is the wrong path. They need to get behind Bill C-21 so we can save lives.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the mass casualty commission's recommendations directly reflects the Liberal ban on firearms, Bill C-21. This bill would add firearms without consultation, and even use this tragedy to its advantage. The opposition was fierce; however, a revamped version has reared its ugly head. What we know clearly is that the monster from this tragic event was not a legal gun owner, and nor were his guns legal. In a recent op-ed, the authors state that the focus should be on securing the border, providing mental health support and diverting at-risk youth from gangs.

When will the Prime Minister start addressing violent repeat offenders and stop attacking grandpas who own a hunting rifle?

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I say respectfully to that member that I remember those committee meetings very well. I tried very hard, and so did my Conservative colleagues on the committee, to bring forward an urgent study of what happened, how the parole system failed the 11 people who were butchered by knife by that man who was out on parole, and failed the 17 more who ended up in hospital. It was the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history. One would think it would be an urgent priority to review what happened in our parole system. We were given excuses and told to let people do their work. They can do their work, but we need to know now what happened and how to prevent it, with at least an introductory study.

I was very clear that we needed to study that right away and perhaps have a follow-up once we had heard more. That fell on deaf ears. The third-largest mass killing in Canadian history was not a priority for public safety. The committee was too busy with its planning to bring forward the most underhanded amendments such that the bill would constitute the largest hunting rifle ban in Canadian history. It was too busy to study the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history. I could talk all day about that, because I feel quite strongly about it. Why is it that a first nations community that had 11 people butchered by a man on parole was not prioritized? We barely talked about it. The public safety committee has not looked into that. I think it is a failure that we could be talking about if the government were not so occupied with coming after lawful firearms owners. I believe the perpetrator had 59 prior violent crime convictions. Why was he allowed out on parole? I do not know, but 11 people are dead, and 17 more were stabbed with a knife by that vile man.

A lot of knife attacks are happening, and bear mace attacks as well. I have a friend who just told me that his kids got on public transit, in the Calgary area, I believe. His college-aged kids were just going to a party. They are nice young people, and everyone in the whole group was bear-maced. The police told them it was the eighth time that had happened recently. It was the eighth time that some punks had bear-maced innocent people on public transit. The victims lived, so maybe the Liberals do not think that it is a priority to talk about that. I do not know.

There are stabbings where young people and older folks are being stabbed to death on public transit. In fact, there was a violent knife attack on the SkyTrain in Surrey that left a young man in hospital. The suspect, the man who attempted to murder that man with a knife, was let out on bail about nine days later. I am told bail reform is not in the budget. Someone who had stabbed someone and attempted to murder him was out on the streets nine days later. This is Liberal Canada, but it is important to go after lawful gun owners, apparently.

This incident followed the death of a 17-year-old, also in B.C., who was stabbed to death on a bus. He died. He was murdered, by knife, on a bus, just recently. This followed a 16-year-old boy having been stabbed and killed in a Toronto public transit station. These are young people who are being murdered, and there are countless other examples. There was a woman who was ice-picked last year. There was a woman who was set on fire in Toronto, near a public transit stop, I believe. There are elderly people who are being pushed to their deaths.

It is common now for people to feel uncomfortable riding public transit, and we are not talking about bail reform. There is no action coming forward on bail reform and how to clean up our streets, yet we are talking, every other day, about going after lawful gun owners. I can go on about how frustrating this is, and this is to say nothing of what police have experienced in the last year.

The Conservatives have been talking about bail reform for quite some time, but the country really started talking about it quite strongly just as a result of something that happened over Christmas. Nothing the Liberals have announced would have done anything to stop what happened to Greg Pierzchala. He was a young OPP officer, about 27 years old. He was young, and he was keen on the job. On December 27, just two days after Christmas, there was a truck in a ditch. He approached the truck, and the driver shot and killed him. That driver was a repeat violent offender with a lifetime weapons prohibition order, who was on bail at the time. He shot and killed that police officer. The officer is no longer with us, because of our bail system.

That, obviously, sparked a national outrage, and that was when the first letter from the premiers went to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform, obviously. There has been a subsequent one, and police have been very vocal. In fact, the Toronto police, who are stoic people, were getting emotional speaking up at the mike at their meetings about the need for bail reform. Actually, Greg Pierzchala was one of 10 police officers killed in the last year, eight of them on the job. That is an insane number of police murders. It is unbelievable. The police have had a pretty rough go of it over the last number of years.

The morale is very low. These are dedicated men and women who kiss their families goodbye in the morning and are never 100% sure if they are going to see them again, especially after a year like this. Ten of them have died, eight of them on the job. Many of these murders involve violent repeat offenders who should not be out on our streets. It is unbelievable that we are not talking about bail reform and that the government is not making announcements about bail reform or parole reform every day.

These guys, and it is mostly guys, who are getting out over and over again should not be on the streets. I think almost everyone agrees with that except extreme leftists, who want to go soft on crime and seem to have taken over the Liberal Party's crime agenda. It is unbelievable.

If we look at B.C., it is an NDP province. However, to its full credit, even B.C. has written to the Liberal cabinet about all its violent repeat offenders. These are unbelievable statistics. I checked them in the article that was published about a week or two ago to make sure they were right, but it seemed, by the reporting, that these are the statistics.

There were 1,325 violent offenders on trial, but prosecutors, or government lawyers, asked only for detention 516 times. Therefore, of over 1,300 violent criminals, government lawyers only asked that they would not get bail about 500 times. Of those 500 criminals for whom prosecutors actually asked for detention, judges only granted bail denial 222 times. Therefore, of over 1,300 violent repeat offenders in B.C., only 221 of them were actually denied bail. That is astounding. That is less than 20% of violent criminals being denied bail.

Why is the number not higher? It should be asked every single time someone has a violent record, should it not? Why are government lawyers asking only half the time? Actually, they are asking less than 50% of the time. Why are judges only saying that violent repeat offenders with a long rap sheet should not be out on bail less than 20% of the time?

I do not know. I am not a judge or a lawyer, and I do not have the expertise to talk about that. However, the Liberal government and the justice minister in charge of our Criminal Code should be talking about why that is happening and how we can fix it. They should be talking about how our justice system could be better supported with Criminal Code changes and other measures. This could equip our court systems to ensure that the most violent people do not get out on bail, so that the 17-year-old boy in B.C. would not have been stabbed to death, so the 16-year-old boy in Toronto would still be alive and so Greg Pierzchala would still be alive.

On the parole board, there has been a 36% decrease in the amount of staff and an 11% funding cut, for some reason. Maybe that is why there are mistakes like what happened in the fall on James Smith Cree Nation. That is where the man I mentioned killed and murdered 11 people, butchering them to death.

It is so frustrating, not just as a Conservative but as a Canadian and a woman who cares about the safety of my family walking down the street. Women already have sort of a sixth sense about this. We are concerned walking at nighttime or getting into an elevator alone with a bunch of men. This is innate in us. To see that, in many cases, women no longer want to ride public transit, especially in Toronto, which is our biggest city, is frustrating.

They are not really talking a lot about that even when we have a clear demand for bail reform. However, Bill C-21, going after lawful firearms owners, is the priority. I will remind folks as well that when the Liberals first brought forward these amendments, they did so in a very sneaky way, in November, before withdrawing them. On November 3, they said they were going to do consultations. We did a couple of consultation meetings at committee, and we brought forward a lot of people to talk about the impact those amendments would have.

The Liberals are saying they are not going after hunting rifles. We brought forward a lot of hunters and experts in that regard, and they have a very different opinion than the Liberals do. The ones who actually use them to hunt have a very different opinion than the Liberals who want to ban them. That is interesting.

The Minister of Public Safety went on a nationwide tour to consult, and he received quite the backlash in many of the meetings he went to. I wonder how many Conservative ridings he went to. I would love to know that, actually. I would imagine it was not very many.

He went to the Yukon. On January 25, in response to his tour to talk to hunters, whose firearms he was looking to take away, the local paper, the Yukon News, said:

None of those who spoke with...[the Minister of Public Safety and the Liberal member for Yukon] were supportive of the proposed legislation. They each gave their reasons. Among them were longtime firearms collectors concerned about a loss of value in their collections; relatively new sport shooters encountering confusing rules...

That is a recurring theme we are hearing from the firearms community and the police who have to enforce these rules. The quote continues:

...and hunters, trappers and resource-industry workers worried that the firearms they rely on to protect themselves from animals in the wilderness will be banned.

In that same article, the quotes from the local people who were “consulted”, or so it was called, by the Minister of Public Safety were quite emotional, which would be the polite word. They are deeply unhappy with what the Liberals are trying to do. There was a lot of that on his tour. He heard it loud and clear, yet he brought forward a very similar definition. Rather than being transparent with the very long list of hundreds of firearms they are looking to ban, they are going to pass it on to a Firearms Advisory Committee.

Despite all these consultations at committee, all these consultations with the Minister of Public Safety and all the things he has heard first-hand from the real, law-abiding people that these things impact, the Liberals are trudging forward and plowing through. The Liberals are determined to, quite quickly, eliminate a lot of hunting rifles from Canada.

At committee, we had a lot of indigenous leaders come and speak to the impact all this would have on them. Bill C-21 has a number of red flag provisions and other things that I will say I thought were red flags when they were originally brought forward. These are supposed to help vulnerable women and indigenous women, and they could be good. I actually stood in the House and asked this: Why do we not split red flags from the bill so that we can usher them along more quickly and take the politics out of it so that we can protect vulnerable people?

I stood in the House. The Minister of Public Safety shouted down the motion I brought forward to do that. It was another good-faith effort from Conservatives to take some of the politics out of this contentious issue. It was shouted down by the Minister of Public Safety; I will never forget that.

Indigenous leaders, women chiefs and others came to committee, and they were very alarmed by some of these red flag laws. They said a number of things. They talked about the red flag laws. In essence, they felt, and I am paraphrasing, that there could be people who have negative views of indigenous people, and they could more easily call in and make up false stories about indigenous people to take their firearms away.

This was a real thing we heard from multiple indigenous leaders. They said, in essence, to paraphrase their sentiments, this would not be good for their community and those who do not like them. That is what came across, and that is not so good. This is supposed to protect indigenous people, particularly women. It does not seem like they want this at all. In fact, they very badly do not want it.

We also heard from law experts. We heard from an organization named the National Association of Women and the Law; there was a Liberal witness. There was also an anti-violence against women Quebec group. I think the thought process from Liberals was for them to support these red flag laws, but all three of the groups that were brought forward said they were terrible. They do not want them. The laws actually further burden women who are being abused by their partners.

It is the exact opposite of what I thought the red flag laws were going to do. Obviously, I am not going to support them. We are not going to support them. I do not believe some of the other opposition parties are either.

We can work together on a few things; that is evident. However, again, this is a measure that was to be brought forward under Bill C-21, and the Liberals were not listening to the people they were trying to help on the issue that they were trying to solve. It is another very clear example that they were not listening to vulnerable women or indigenous people about something that they said was going to help them. This is symptomatic of how the government approaches firearms.

It was pretty interesting. We had one of the most notable Canadian hunters, a really incredible guy from an incredible family. I am talking about Jim Shockey. His daughter is quite a hero for young women hunters across the country. I have to say, one of my sisters follows her Instagram and has for years. He said the following:

Everybody understands hunters are not a threat to your safety or the national security of this country. However, we feel vilified and marginalized. Recently, we've felt attacked. We're not the enemy. We love our country. The taking away of life is obviously a terrible and fundamentally wrong thing, but the taking away of a way of life is also wrong.

That is a powerful quote coming from someone who knows hunting probably better than almost anyone in the country aside from indigenous Canadians, who have been hunting on this land for thousands of years.

When Liberals say this is not a hunting rifle ban, ask hunters. They saw the SKS on the list. They saw other firearms on the list that they commonly use for hunting. Whom should the public believe? Should they believe people who actually hunt, use them for a living and pass them down to their kids? Or should they believe Liberals who, as we have heard from the Prime Minister, say that some hunting guns will have to be banned?

In my opinion, that is just the beginning, obviously. Again, ask the Liberals if this is going to be the last hunting, rifle, shotgun or firearms ban. I would guess that they are going to say no or change the subject quickly.

We have Martin Bourget; he and his wife have a Quebec French hunting show. Hunting in Quebec is a huge, massive industry. They said, “Legitimate gun owners in Canada are deeply puzzled about the very legitimacy of the process set out in Bill C-21 and the enforcement of these measures.” They are asking for nothing less than a study of the bill's true impact on the safety of Canadians and on traditional hunting, harvesting and sport shooting. Of course, we never really got an in-depth study on all those things. We had a couple of consultation meetings, and now the Liberals are really trying to limit debate on the impact of many of these amendments.

I think that Mr. Bourget's wife represents 20,000 female French hunters, which is pretty amazing. I really hope I get a chance to go hunting with them some day. In any case, they are speaking for a large group of hunters, who are not a big fan of the bill. They feel that the consultations have not met the true depth of respect that is needed for our hunting community, our farmers and indigenous Canadians. It is not being met at committee and certainly not being met by the Liberals.

Actually, there is something on consultation. A few years ago, the Liberals did a consultation on firearms, which we found out from an information request they spent over $200,000 on. Of the 133,000 respondents, when asked, in essence, if further measures should be taken against handguns, about 87% said no. When asked the same question about so-called assault-style firearms, I think between 70% and 80% said that no more action was needed. Again, this is a made-up Liberal term and not a firearms term.

I think that is pretty shocking. In the actual consultation that the Liberals spent significant taxpayer dollars on, of the 133,000 people responding, very few of them thought that any of these measures should be undertaken. I assume they kind of just chucked that in the garbage, because they really have not talked about it at all. The evidence is right there, and yet they do not want to look at it or acknowledge that it is, in fact, what Canadians believe. The Liberals talked about some random poll once and that is it, but the 133,000 people who were asked did not show a lot of support for what they are doing. Anyway, these are very inconvenient facts for the Liberals, which we found out through an information request.

Who else did we ask? We talked to someone from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. I think it is one of the oldest associations in the country. It is very notable, reputable and moderate. It is a hunting and angling association, and it is part of the lifeblood of the hunting community. I grew up going to my local game and fish association. Certainly, being from Ontario, I believe this Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters is the largest in the country. I think it represents about 100,000 active members and has an impact on the family members and small communities it supports. However, it said that:

Firearms are not the disease, particularly in a nation like Canada with robust gun laws. Gun violence is often symptomatic of much bigger societal issues.

I would agree with that. It goes on to say:

Taking firearms away from law-abiding Canadians will not reduce the upstream issues that fuel criminal activity and demand for illicit firearms. Therefore, model-based firearm prohibitions will continue to fail as they won’t be able to have a detectable impact on reducing gun violence or enhancing public safety.

Again, I do not know this person's profession, but I do not believe they are a legal expert. However, they have put an obvious statement very eloquently. This seems foreign when we are looking at the Liberal priorities on firearms and the relentless assault on law-abiding Canadians.

Marc Renaud, president of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs said in French, which I translate into English, “we strongly believe in the power of education and prevention for promoting firearms safety. Our members want to feel safe, too, and they hope new laws intended to improve public safety focus on the right targets. Hunters and sport shooters who comply with the training requirements and get the right licences are the wrong target.”

Again, this was in response to the G-4 and G-46 amendments on the definition in the long list from November 2022. They brought forward a very similar definition, and the list will just be passed over to the firearms advisory committee, as was said today in the House by the Liberal parliamentary secretary.

We are here again. These are the comments from hunters, from large hunting advocacy groups, and the Liberals are still saying this is not a hunting rifle ban.

Lynda Kiejko is Olympian in women's pistol shooting. Many people may not know this, and again those who follow the Olympics would know this, Canadians are very proud of our Olympians, that we have Olympic sport shooters and have for over a century.

If we look at hunting just like anything else, hunters and farmers use them as tools. People in the military or police are going to use firearms. Who is the best shot? Who is the most accurate at targets? That comes from the firearm community. That is very obvious.

It is actually a sense of real pride for someone who is a good marksman. Someone who does not know anything about hunting or sport shooting would not understand that, I get it. However, those who are from a hunting community, every person knows that when people get a big buck, they sit around the table while the hunters relive their epic story about the hunt. They will say how many yards away it was, whether it was windy. They recount a great story of their great hunt. It is part of the culture. For indigenous Canadians, it has been the same for thousands of years. This is important.

Those who are a good marksman or markswoman like to brag about that. This is very normal and natural in hunting and sport shooting communities. Of course, sport shooting also comes, in part, from that.

It is incredible that Canada has some of the best marksmen in the world, and Lynda Kiejko and her family are some of the best marksmen in the country. In particular, she is in the women's pistol shooting.

The Liberal efforts to freeze, ban or whatever they are saying in Bill C-21 about handguns really would not do any of that. As we have heard from our Olympic sport shooters and our national sport shooters from IPSC and the like, which is a national sport shooting association that competes internationally, all it really would do is impact their sport shooting community. It makes it very difficult for them to get new parts for the tools they use when they compete. It makes it very difficult for them to bring their firearms in and out of the country for competition. It makes it very difficult for Canada to host any sort of sport shooting competition. It makes it very challenging.

The World Police and Fire Games are coming up. Winnipeg is hosting those games, which it is pretty incredible. It is a nightmare to try to get firearms in for the sport shooting part of that competition. Again, there is a real sense of pride for Winnipeg and Canada that we are hosting the World Police and Fire Games this summer. It is very exciting.

Lynda Kiejko is a proud Olympian, and all Canadians should be very proud of her. I am, and I know the Conservatives are. She said:

I take great pride in representing my country on the world stage, as do all athletes. I'm sad that due to the handgun ban, the order in council, Bill C-71 and this proposed legislation, I will not be able to represent Canada on the world stage. Athletes who come after me won't even have an opportunity to compete, as they will have no access to competition firearms.

The Liberals, with Bill C-21, and this is out of the mouths of the sport shooters themselves, are wiping out sport shooting in Canada. Certainly this would be the last generation that ever sport shoots, with pistols for sure.

When challenged about that at committee, the Liberals looked down their noses at our sport shooters, in essence saying, and people can look at the video footage, that Canada did not want that anymore, that they did not want those dirty Olympians sport shooters. I am paraphrasing, obviously. This is my tone being put on the Liberals, but people can look at the video. In essence, they are looking down their nose, judging sport shooters, saying that they are not welcome anymore in Canada, that they do not want them, and to get out.

That is the sense I walked away with when I watched that interaction between the Liberals and our Olympian. I could not believe it. Everyone should be proud of our Olympians, especially our best marksman, and a woman. That is awesome.

We will fight very hard to ensure that we can continue to compete internationally with IPSC and Olympic sport shooting. Again, once this passes, and the Liberals already did it through regulation, we will see the death of sport shooting in Canada, particularly pistols first and then likely the rest, if the Liberals get to proceed with their true agenda here.

It is very frustrating in that regard, that we have real people, who use these as tools, coming forward to committee and saying that the Liberals are banning their hunting rifles, they are banning their ability to compete in sport shooting on the world stage, representing Canada with pride, yet the Liberals are saying they are not, that this is not true.

Who do we believe? The people who are impacted by it or the Liberals who do not want people to own firearms, which is what I think is really going on here.

What about the data. We could talk a lot about the facts of this, because in committee we see the Liberals bring forward folks of various stripes. We are all are allowed to bring forward our own witnesses, which is part of the democratic process. However, that is the party that consistently says it follows the science, it believes in data over and over again, except when the science does not suit its agenda. It is very clear.

Some of the best researchers in the world are from Canada, when it comes to firearms. Dr. Caillin Langmann is an award-winning researcher, highly recognized in the medical and scientific research community for his work. He has scrutinized every possible data point in Canada, looking at the impacts of subsequent gun control and what that has done or not done on homicide. Whether it is mass homicide, homicide, domestic homicide, he has looked at it all for decades. He has looked at Australia and has also commented on the U.K. as well.

Not only has he done his own research, but he has reviewed the research of others because of his ability to heavily scrutinize data. He is widely recognized in the scientific community for his high level of integrity and scrutiny on this. I have not seen one piece of evidence even close to the integrity of Dr. Caillin Langmann when it comes to the impact of gun control on homicide. There is nothing that holds a candle to it. No one has brought anything forward. I have heard that, in the court cases that are ongoing on this right now, the government has not really brought forward any evidence to make its case for this either, but that is another discussion that I will likely get to at some point as well.

Dr. Caillin Langmann, after all of his research, said, “the evidence so far demonstrates that the proposed handgun and semi-automatic rifle bans would have no associated reduction in homicide rates or mass homicide rates. Methods that have been shown to be more effective in reducing firearms homicides involve targeting the demand side of the firearms prevalence in criminal activity.” It seems very obvious and this is what police have been telling us, but he has actually seen that in the data.

In fact, what he and some other researchers of high repute have found is that the only real impacts we can have in terms of responsible gun ownership are basic things that we have had for almost 30 years. We can talk about background checks, licensing and safe storage. Those are the only proven things to have an impact on homicide and public safety when it comes to firearms, and those are things that are very much supported by the Conservative Party of Canada and that we have had for a number of years. That is responsible gun ownership, and we are behind that 100%.

Only people licensed, trained and vetted by police should ever have ownership of firearms. That is what we believe; that is very clear. That is what the evidence says is important to protect public safety, yet the Liberals are ignoring the scientific evidence by highly reputable researchers and medical doctor. They are cherry-picking the information that suits their narrative, which has been widely shredded by Dr. Caillin Langmann with his high degree of integrity and research ability.

We also have Dr. Teri Bryant, chief firearms officer of Alberta's Chief Firearms Office. I have never met a person who is as much of a firearms expert as she is. It is incredible. She can be asked about any firearm, and this woman knows. It is unbelievable, and great to see. She said:

Even after the withdrawal of G-4 and G-46, Bill C-21 continues to undermine confidence in our firearms control system while contributing nothing to reducing the violent misuse of firearms. Bill C-21 is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. Prohibiting specific types of firearms is not an effective way of improving public safety. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been used on more effective approaches, such as the enforcement of firearms prohibition orders, reinforcing the border or combatting the drug trade and gang activity.

Again, it seems self-evident, but to hear from an expert who is charged with this at the provincial level is refreshing. We had her expertise at committee. All of this was said, and yet there really was no change in what was brought forward. We asked a number of questions on the definition.

The Liberals brought forward something else, which I should have mentioned at the beginning, but it is unsettling because we are not really clear on what the implications will really be. It seems good kind of, but then maybe it is really not. Based on the Liberals' track record of lack of transparency on this, I am deeply concerned. There is, in essence, sort of a forward-looking clause that they have brought forward for that definition. It is a grandfathering clause, in a way. Anyone who owns these firearms that Liberals are looking to ban now apparently gets to keep them. Who would have thought? The Liberals are saying, for now, that those people get to keep them.

We will see what the firearms advisory committee says in a couple of months, but it is saying that anything that falls under this new definition the Liberals have brought forward, which is really the old definition, people will get to keep those and they can keep buying and selling them. However, they cannot buy the brand-new models that are manufactured, any new version of these firearms.

That sounds okay, I guess. It is just kind of limiting. They cannot buy the almost exact same firearms that are new, but they can buy existing ones. It does not really follow. Further, it does not follow that the Liberals have been getting up in the House and at press conferences for years saying things about these firearms, that they are weapons of war designed for killing people. They have been taking that position. They have been very clear that these are terrible things that no one should own, yet now they have brought forward a new definition that allows everybody to keep them. That does not make sense.

We spent about an hour and a half asking clarifying questions about this. I am not reassured that what we are seeing is really the case. If it is, I feel quite confident that they are going to just shoot this over. The Liberals are going to say that people can keep them but they are going to send it over to the advisory committee and it will ban it for them. I really think that is going to happen.

People will let their guard down. The firearms advisory committee will let its guard down with this new definition to let people keep firearms, but people are not going to get to keep them. I believe that the firearms advisory committee, as was alluded to when asked about the SKS, will have to do the dirty work. It will have to look at that very long list of firearms that was hundreds of pages long and had hundreds of hunting rifles on it. The committee will be looking at that list and looking to ban those firearms. We heard as much today. Therefore, people should not be reassured for one moment by this new definition. It is leading people down the garden path, letting people let their guard down.

However, we know what is going on here. The Conservatives, along with law-abiding citizens in our country, private property owners who are trained, tested and vetted by police, will continue to stand up for those people who have been repeatedly kicked by the Liberal government and treated terribly, like they were criminals. That seems to be the focus.

I know I am going to take a pause and restart at some point, but just to conclude for this hour and 10 minutes I have been speaking, the minister seems to have really cranked down on his remarks about who the Conservatives are standing with. He has been vicious in talking about who we are standing with. I being the lead, he is talking about me and he is talking about the Leader of the Opposition, who I am standing with when I am talking about law-abiding citizens and fighting for firearms' owners. He makes outlandish, unfounded claims about who I am standing with when I am in the House talking about this. I find it deeply offensive.

Here is why. Who am I standing with? I went to a game and fish association event in rural Manitoba, in my hometown, Beausejour, Manitoba, just the other day. I spoke to people about the work I was doing in the House to fight for their way of life. A big, burly, country boy came up to me at the end as I was leaving and asked to speak to me. He wanted to thank me for fighting for firearms' owners. He looked me in the eye and I could see he was visibly getting emotional. He thanked me for fighting for them, for standing up for them, for always fighting against the Liberals and for signing up for their way of life. He had to start walking because he was getting emotional, a big country boy. I could not believe it. I have been getting that a lot.

Those are the people I am fighting for, those good Canadians. I will fight relentlessly for them every single day without stopping. We will pick this up again the next time.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will remind the Liberal member that, if he is looking to throw me off, he is severely underestimating me, just like many a man before him. I have a lot to say, and I will be here for quite some time, so hopefully he is hydrated and fed because he is going to be waiting a long time.

I have more to say on the announcement last week, which was impacted by Bill C-21. The minister at the same time announced the firearms advisory committee, the so-called new definition, but with the old definition, but sneakier.

He also announced that there is going to be something about a permanent alteration to magazines, which we have already, but the way he worded it would signify to me that there is going to be a change in what that means. When we tried to ask about it at committee, we did not get any answers because apparently it was not technically within Bill C-21, but he announced it at the same time he was talking about the bill. The Liberals and officials would not answer our question, but what was taken from that in the firearms community is that the permanent alteration of magazines would go a step further than what is being done now and would impact many a firearm that really is Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle.

For example, the Lee Enfield, is a very popular firearm. It was the British firearm until about the 1950s. It is well made and has been passed down through generations. It is made completely from wood stock and is exactly what we would think of and picture when we think about Grandpa Joe going out to hunt deer. However, one cannot permanently alter the magazine capabilities of that firearm without destroying it. There is no way. Therefore, is the minister now saying that he is going to destroy the Lee Enfield? He will not answer. I have urged people to write to the minister to ask him about that because he will not answer our questions, nor will the Liberals on the public safety committee.

I will also note that the tubular magazine hunting rifle, where the bullet goes right into the tube because there is no magazine, as in the image the Liberals are trying to bring forward, is an old school, 1800s-level technology. For example, the Winchester 1873, I think it is called, is a tubular magazine firearm that holds seven to 14 cartridges or bullets. It cannot be altered in any way, as that would destroy the firearm.

These are heirloom firearms. I am pretty sure my grandfather had one in the closet for when coyotes would try to get into the chicken coop. That is how old school these firearms are. There are hundreds of versions of these in rural Canada. It is owned by collectors, and certainly by hunters and indigenous Canadians. If the SKS is popular in indigenous communities, so too is the Lee Enfield, so why would the Liberals not be clear on what they are talking about with respect to these permanent alterations to magazines? Why are they being so cagey about that? Is it because they do not know? Is it ignorance, or are they hiding something? I do not know.

I have given them the benefit of the doubt before. However, here we are, and they are forcing an end to the democratic discussion and scrutiny that is needed on this bill at committee today, so I really do not trust anything they are about to say on that, if they say anything at all, because they have refused to answer my questions and our questions at the public safety committee about the Lee Enfield and tubular magazine long guns.

While this has been going on, and we have heard so much about this, the Liberals are attacking us, particularly me. I suppose it is because I have been the lead on firearms. They talk about the Conservatives more in their announcements than they talk about the crime that is wreaking havoc in our communities, which they are not doing a lot about.

I want to say that I know this debate is very heated and very personal to people on all sides. I have always done my best to lead this discussion from our perspective, from a professional and authentic standpoint, and what really shocked me was last week, or it might have been the week before, when the minister was announcing phase one of his so-called buyback, which I will get to. He said, in essence, that Conservatives were at fault and bear some of the responsibility for the abuse the Liberals are getting from what they say are gun owners. I have no idea, as I have not seen that.

It is interesting that they talk about it as if we have not received any abuse from people who do not agree with our position. I can tell members that I have certainly received very threatening abuse for the position we have taken. I am the lead on this file. I have received many threats and have been concerned for my safety in this debate, so I was very offended when I heard them trying to blame Conservatives, particularly me because I am the lead in this regard, when I have not been spared or kept from any of that abuse myself.

I am undeterred. I will continue on. I will not be bullied into silence on this. However, just to be clear, the rhetoric from the Liberals is trumping up a lot of hate toward me and others on this side of the House as well. I do not like talking about it. We do not want copycats. We do not want any heroes from these evil, sadistic people, but when I heard something like that, I thought that I had to say something.

I have kept quiet, but I will not stand idly by while the Minister of Public Safety blames me for the abuse he has gotten for his underhanded policies, when I too have suffered abuse because of his rhetoric. I just wanted to put that on the record. I hope to speak to the minister personally about that.

We are talking a lot about firearms. Of course, exclusively, Bill C-21 only impacts, with the so-called handgun freeze or ban, which is really not any of that, people who follow the law. They are the trained, tested and vetted Canadian citizens who are approved by the RCMP to own firearms. Those are really the only people who are impacted by all of these measures since the May 2020 OIC and Bill C-71 before it. It only impacts regular, everyday Canadians who are legally allowed to own firearms. They are heavily vetted Canadians, who are legally allowed to own firearms.

However, the government continues to bring forward measure after measure to attack this group of people. Meanwhile, criminals are running rampant on our streets. I have talked at length about the crime issues. Canadians know full well what has been going on, on public transit and on the streets of Toronto. Everywhere we go in Canada there seems to be horrific headlines of innocent people being attacked by complete strangers who are deranged.

We are facing very serious issues, yet the Liberal budget 2023 really failed to address those violent crime issues. In fact, violent crime was not mentioned once, zero times, in that budget.

Do members know what else was not mentioned once in that budget? Bail reform was not mentioned once in the budget and has not been mentioned in the priorities of that budget from the Minister of Public Safety, despite the fact that every premier of every province and territory in Canada has written two letters to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform because of what is happening in their provinces and territories with crime and repeat violent offenders continuing to get bail and getting back on our streets, hurting Canadians.

When have we ever heard every premier in the country agreeing on a letter? It is very rare. Maybe when they are asking for health care funding, but aside from that, it is a very rare occurrence. There have now been two letters sent to the Prime Minister.

There are also municipal police forces. I just spoke at the big ten police conference, which included every major police association, municipal police forces across the country. I just flew to Calgary last week to speak to them. They are demanding bail reform. Every big city mayor in Ontario is demanding bail reform. While everyone seems to agree on bail reform, there has been no meaningful action or change taken by the Minister of Public Safety on bail reform. I will remind those watching of violent crime in this country, which is up 32% from 2015 to 2021.

When we get to 2022 stats, it will be deeply concerning, I am going to guess that they are going to be way up, just based on the headlines, but they are up 32% between 2015 and 2021. It equates to 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year, which is an insane amount of additional crime that the police are having to deal with, despite police numbers really suffering, which I will talk more about in a minute. We are seeing that crime wave steadily increase, year by year, under the Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety's watch. That is all happening.

On that, bail reform is a huge issue. If we look at Vancouver, there were 6,000 crime incidents, interactions with police, for crime. Of these, 40 people were responsible for 6,000 interactions with police. Those 40 people are sure keeping police busy in Vancouver. These are violent repeat offenders causing havoc on transit, when we walk down the street with one's family and when we are trying to enjoy the parks. There are 40 people causing 6,000 interactions with police in one year, yet there are crickets about bail reform. They say, “Oh, we are meeting and talking about it”, but that is all we hear. It has been months.

In fact, the Victoria police recently put out a news release about a vile rapist who committed 10 sexual assaults with a weapon. Why was he released? The police wanted to make sure the public knew why it was not their fault he was released. At the bottom of the news release, there is a question that asks, “Why was this person released?” I think this is consistent on their news releases, when it is relevant. It was because of Bill C-75. That is a Liberal bill from a few years ago that made bail, in essence, the default for violent repeat offenders. They got bail by default.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. We are seeing a massive crime surge, and this is one of the reasons police are underlining this and making this heard by MPs over and over again. That is all going on. We are hearing through Toronto police statistics that of the 44 murders, I think it was either last year or in 2021, in over half, 24 or 26 of the 44 murders, the murderers were out on bail at the time. Over half of 44 murders could have been prevented if the Liberals had not brought in such a weak bail regime. They are getting up at the mike and talking about how this so-called new definition, old definition, no list, sneaky list given to the firearms advisory council is going to solve crime, or is one of the things that are going to solve crime.

It is not going to do anything about the people in Toronto who are getting out on bail and murdering people. Toronto police will remind us that about nine out of 10 firearms used in crime in Toronto, mostly handguns, are smuggled in from the U.S. We could outlaw, and I am sure the Liberals are working on it, every single handgun legally owned in this country, and the situation will get worse in cities. The statistics will continue to go up because these criminals are not legally owning the guns. Most of them are prohibited from ever going near a firearm.

Most repeat violent offenders should be in jail, because they smuggle the firearms in quite easily through the Prime Minister's very porous border, through which he has allowed all these drugs and guns to come into the country. That includes human trafficking and all kinds of other things he has allowed under his watch. They are flowing into Toronto and other big cities, such as Montreal and Winnipeg. I have seen the firearms myself, as the Winnipeg police have shown me smuggled ones. There are 3-D-printed guns as well. People are using 3-D printers and printing plastic handguns that are going for $7,000 a pop on the streets of Winnipeg. Bill C-21 would really not do a lot about that.

We worked together on an amendment to perhaps give police a teeny extra tool, which I supported, but going after lawful firearms owners is not going to do anything about the problems in Toronto. Nothing in Bill C-21 would really have stopped the murders of those 20-odd people who were murdered by those on bail who smuggled guns in or printed them. The Liberals say they are increasing maximum sentencing on gun smugglers. That is technically true, but in reality it is baloney. One of my Conservative colleagues, who did great work, made an information request to the government asking how many people have received the maximum sentence, up to right now, for gun smuggling. Do members know, for the eight years that the Prime Minister has ruled the country, how many people got the maximum 10-year sentence for gun smuggling activities? Zero people have gotten the maximum, so to increase it to 14 years is really not going to do a whole heck of a lot.

Perhaps what they should have done is to bring in mandatory minimums for gun smuggling. That would have taken criminals off the street. That would have actually done something, maybe. Conservatives were looking at maybe doing that with an amendment, but we were told it was out of scope so we could not bring forward mandatory maximums. Maybe that is something the member for Carleton, as prime minister of the country, will look at, because that would make a real, actual difference in cracking down on gun smuggling.

I will remind the House that, at the same time as the Liberals were going after lawful firearms owners to such a degree, with so many taxpayer dollars and so much effort by the Minister of Public Safety, in the fall, the Minister of Justice brought forward a bill, which he apparently celebrated quite excitedly when it was passed, to remove mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun crimes and violent crimes. Does everyone want to know what the list of those crimes is? On the list is robbery with a gun. Someone can rob a store with a gun, and it is no longer guaranteed that they will go to jail. That is the Liberal Prime Minister's vision of what we should do about crime: People can rob someone at gunpoint, and there is no longer a mandatory minimum for them.

The list continues with extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting, knowing the firearm is unauthorized; and discharging a firearm with intent, including things like drive-by shootings. There is no longer mandatory prison time for the people who commit these offences. Also on the list, there is using a firearm in the commission of an offence, or breaking the law with a gun; there is no longer a mandatory prison time for this. For possession of a firearm, knowing its possession is unauthorized, or illegally possessing a firearm, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For all those criminals in Toronto, it was a good day when Bill C-5 passed.

There is also possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition. A person could have a prohibited gun with a whole bunch of ammunition, and there is no longer mandatory prison time for them. Again, gangs are celebrating every time the Liberal Prime Minister is elected. For possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence, stealing one, in essence, there is no longer mandatory prison time. For possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, excluding firearms ammunition, there is no mandatory prison time.

For discharging a firearm recklessly, there is no longer mandatory prison time. People die in cities because there are gangsters discharging firearms recklessly all the time, firearms they have smuggled in or 3D-printed. There is no longer mandatory prison time for them. In fact, in that same bill, Bill C-5, the Liberals brought forward a supposedly improved option for people who commit sexual assault. Now the law ensures that people who commit sexual assault, rape, do not have to go to prison. They can actually serve house arrest in the comfort of their homes. Rapists can serve their sentence playing video games, with their feet up, in their own homes. It is unreal. I should not be laughing about it, but it is so outrageous and ridiculous that it is hard for me, as a woman, to wrap my head around a so-called feminist government saying that rapists can serve house arrest for their sentence. This just happened in Quebec, where a vile rapist violently raped a woman and got zero days in prison and only 20 months under house arrest.

This is all in the scope of what the Liberals view as their crime priorities. They are getting up at the mike every other day, announcing new gun control measures to go after folks who are lawfully allowed to own firearms, and saying that that is going to make a difference. What would make a difference is repealing Bill C-5 and making sure violent criminals and rapists go to jail. That would make a difference in public safety.

It is not just about firearms. In fact, a lot of the crime we are seeing involves knives. Where is the conversation about knives? We just had what I believe was the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history, and we barely heard a peep about that, certainly not from the Liberals. We tried to study it at committee, and they would not let us. It was in the fall, the third-largest mass killing in Canadian history. A man who got out on parole despite—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be talking today. I take that back, I am not very happy to be talking today in the House of Commons on the circumvention of the democratic process and the very important discussion we are having on Bill C-21. I have a lot to say about the many amendments that were being discussed on Bill C-21, and I may not have the right to talk about those, other than in a very limited way at committee, if this time allocation motion passes today.

I want to put on the record what we are really talking about.

The Prime Minister has made his true agenda very clear to Canadians very recently, in the last four months, while we have been having this discussion on Bill C-21 and the Liberal effort to expand it to be the largest hunting-rifle ban in Canadian history. When the Prime Minister was pressed about this after enormous backlash from the hunting, sport shooting, farming and indigenous communities, he did admit that taking hunting rifles away was the goal when he said, “Our focus now is on saying okay, there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”.

The Prime Minister said it himself. He has let Canadians know what his true intentions are, and so no matter what the Liberals talk about, no matter what slogans, quick words or terminology they want to use, make up or pull out of thin air, he has made it very clear that the Liberal government, in partnership with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, are going after firearms used to hunt by Canadian hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians. There is a lot to talk about today, but, again, I would underline what the motion would do if passed.

The discussion at committee that we are having about Bill C-21, now that the Liberals have let us resume the process on Bill C-21 discussion at committee, is proceeding quite well. We have done almost half the amendments, and there are many amendments, in just two meetings. Considering how contentious this is, that is record time.

Also, considering the Liberals reintroduced a so-called “new definition” to the previous version, which is almost the same, really put shockwaves through the firearms community in Canada. Members could imagine that our scrutiny as opposition parties is very high, and so it is quite miraculous that we have actually managed to get through that and half of the amendments for Bill C-21, which amounts to inches of paperwork. The bill would impact 2.3 million gun owners, their families, their communities, hundreds of millions of dollars in our economy and tens of thousands of jobs, not to mention centuries of culture and heritage in Canada. It is surprising that the parties worked so well at committee, and we have gone over almost half of the amendments in only two meetings, which is quite surprising. So, why the need for the motion before us?

Well, it is very interesting. Part of the work that we have been doing at committee is to, of course, heavily scrutinize Bill C-21, and the very sneaky and underhanded amendments that the Liberals introduced at the 11th hour of committee back in, I believe, November 2022, which was when everything blew up about Bill C-21. Hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians saw the true feelings of this government, which is that it would come after hundreds of their firearms.

Remember, Bill C-21 is supposed to be the so-called “handgun ban”, which it is not really, but the Liberals expanded it to banning hunting rifles and many hundreds of long guns. Of course, Conservatives, right off the bat, said, “Well, that is not in the scope of the bill.” We went to vote at committee to rule it out of scope and to kick this part out of Bill C-21 for good. However, the NDP teamed up with the Liberals and voted down that out-of-scope vote. We could have stopped this right at the beginning if not for the NDP. Of course, its members are working very closely with the Liberals and their true agenda to take away firearms from hunters, sport shooters, farmers and indigenous Canadians.

Then, I think the NDP was having some remorse. Obviously, in their rural and northern communities, there was significant backlash. I know for a fact that the NDP member from northern Ontario got a lot of backlash. The NDP sort of moved to almost wanting to rule this out of scope, which we appreciated and the hunters appreciated. Now they have completely backtracked, despite almost the exact same definition coming in, but it is actually much worse, which I will talk about in a minute.

Again, Conservatives, in our diligence, at committee last week moved to rule this out of scope again, because the bill is not about long guns, it is not about banning hunting rifles. Yet, the Liberals, working with the NDP, are trying very hard to make that within the scope of the bill. They voted that down yet again. So, it is very convenient to have today's time allocation motion, which is very long and talks about a lot of things.

In essence, what is really important to remember is that this will expand the scope of the bill. They are retroactively expanding the scope of Bill C-21 so that we cannot have it ruled out of scope. Of course, as a last-ditch effort there was a parliamentary procedure we could have tried. That would have been to go right to the Speaker to rule this out of scope of Bill C-21. Considering he represents a rural riding with tons of hunters, sport shooters and farmers, I would imagine he would have considered it, especially considering that we are right and it certainly is outside the scope. I find it very convenient that that is part of the objective of today's motion. It is within the scope. That eliminate all options for us to have it ruled out of scope. No longer do we have any parliamentary procedure left to have this ruled out of scope. It is very important for people to understand that.

This is a nuclear option. This is what happens when committees go awry and there are hours of filibusters with nothing moving. That is all that was happening at committees last week. We went through half of the amendments in a highly contentious bill at only two meetings; two meetings, which is pretty impressive by every measure that I have seen in my time as a parliamentarian. There is no reason for this at all. In fact, the NDP member at committee has spoken more than almost anybody in the last two meetings.

It does not really make sense why the Liberals are trying to forcibly limit debate the way they are doing it. If this passes at committee, we will only have five minutes to ask any questions about each clause. If people ever watch me, which I know a lot of people interested in this have, we have to ask the officials questions and ask for clarification.

Again, this impacts 2.3 million gun owners, their families and hundreds of millions of dollars of the economy; tens of thousands of jobs, centuries of culture and heritage in Canada, so the idea that we would limit debate so severely is very concerning to us, especially since we have been enacting in good faith and have gone through half of the amendments in two meetings. I cannot stress that enough.

I was very surprised to see this over the weekend. I have to be honest that it was a real slap in the face to the work that we have been doing at committee. If we wanted to drag it out, we could still be talking about that definition. There are so many ambiguities in that so-called new definition we could easily be talking about that still, yet we had our questions. We recognized that there are other things to talk about at committee. It is the public safety committee and we are in a public safety crisis in this country because of repeat violent offenders that the Liberals keep letting out of jail. I will talk about that later.

There are so many things we should be talking about at the public safety and national security committee so we are moving along. This is what we get; a real lesson to me about working together at committee. I have learned my lesson today about giving any benefit of the doubt or acting in good faith at all. Obviously, it is upsetting because we have been working hard at committee and doing our due diligence. This is what we get: forcing the elimination of proper debate and scrutiny on Bill C-21 amendments that impact millions of people. I think I have harped on that enough. Maybe I will come back to it later.

Let us talk about this new definition. It is really not new. It is just almost like lipstick on a pig, for the lack of a better expression.

I will outline the old definition. It said a firearm that is “a rifle or a shotgun that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed." That was the original definition. That was clause G4. If folks have heard of G4, that was G4, along with a number of other things from the May 2020 OIC, which we are all very familiar with. It was also provided in a very short order, in a very sneaky, underhanded way, with clause G46, which folks will remember was hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages long and looked to ban an additional, almost 500, long guns. That is where the infamous SKS is found, which is very popular with hunters and indigenous. Again, that list was massive. It was about three inches thick. They dropped that in a very sneaky and underhanded way, along with this definition.

Months went by. There was a massive uproar with hundreds of thousands of phone calls, letters and social media posts from the firearms community across Canada. The Liberals, for once, relented and withdrew G46 and G4. I have never seen that before. That was actually quite shocking. I have never seen them back down on anything before. That was round one, as we found out.

Round two, here we are yet again with almost no change. Actually, I would argue that it is worse now. I will tell the House why.

I just read the old definition. This is the new one. The definition includes a firearm “that is not a handgun that discharges centrefire ammunition“, which was mentioned before, “in a semi-automatic manner”, which was also mentioned before, “and that was originally designed with a detachable magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more.” There are weasel word changes there, but they are very subtle. The reason they mention a firearm that is not a handgun is interesting.

There is more weaselling manoeuvring here. The French translation for what they originally had was “fusil de chasse”, which means “hunting rifle”. That was the direct French translation of what the Liberals were trying to ban late last year, but of course there are tens of thousands of hunters, sport shooters and farmers in rural Quebec, which the Bloc forgets, but there are, and they were in an uproar, obviously. Therefore, the government has worked it out so that at least it does not say “hunting rifle” in French, but that is the translation of what it was trying to ban just in November. Let us just be clear about that. The government just switched around the words a bit, which is very interesting.

What is very problematic about this is that the government has mostly boasted or talked at length about how it is not bringing forward the big list, not to worry about the big list and the government is not going to ban those in legislation. That was what the public could scrutinize. There were almost 500 additional rifles and shotguns in there, many of which are very commonly used hunting rifles. There were a lot of them in there and the public could at least see the list. People did see it, and they were shocked at the number of hunting rifles being banned. The government said not to worry, and that it was not bringing forward the list again, just the definition.

However, what the government is doing in a very sneaky, underhanded way seems to be a theme for the government when it comes to banning hunting rifles, which is by doing it through the back door. The Liberals are bringing forward a firearms advisory committee, and they keep referring to it. When asked about the SKS, for example, which does not technically fall under this definition but was on the original list, the Liberals have as much as told us that the firearms advisory committee will look to ban that. The minister has said that and the parliamentary secretary has referred to that. Immediately, when asked about the SKS, the answer is that the firearms advisory committee will be looking at that.

What is this firearms advisory committee? The Liberals are saying it is a non-partisan group of experts they are putting together. We have heard that before. The Liberals have had similar advisory committees for firearms, and they have had some of the biggest anti-gun groups in the country on the so-called advisory committee they had before, in a previous iteration. Therefore, I do not trust for one minute that there are going to be advocates for lawful firearm ownership for hunters, sport shooters, farmers and indigenous Canadians in this regard and from this perspective on that committee. Not for one minute do I trust that this is going to be the case.

The Liberals keep referring to that committee whenever we ask about the SKS. Therefore, to me, it is very clear. In the language that was used just today in the House was very telling. The member said that they will take a look at that, referring to the SKS, and the 482 firearms to decide which ones to move forward with. When the member was asked about the SKS, she would be referring to the firearms committee. She was talking about deciding which ones to move froward with banning.

Again, it is very sneaky because there is no list we can scrutinize. It is just some unelected body. The firearms advisory committee would be a committee of so-called experts, which we know will be partisan anti-gun groups from the country. They will be coming up with lists to ban, so this is worse than what we had before because now we cannot see the list. It is likely not even going to be announced. It is just going to be a new list added to the OIC or some other version of it, and people will find out somehow down the road what they can no longer own. It is a very arbitrary list, indeed.

I will remind folks that, in May 2020, after the worst mass shooting and worst mass killing in Canadian history, in the hours and days following that, when people had not had the chance to bury their loved ones or properly mourn the people who had been lost by that vile, sick killer, the government was scheming to bring forward the May 2020 OIC. It did, and there were 1,500 long guns that were banned in the cloak of darkness during the middle of the pandemic, as it had hit Canada just a month and a half prior. The government banned that and has subsequently added 400 more long guns to that over the last couple of years. Then, in November, there were another almost 500 added on.

The Liberals are not going to stop. If we were to ask any Liberal if this is going to be the last firearm ban they are going to bring forward, I would be shocked if any of them said yes because, again, this firearms committee is going to be bringing forward tons more firearms to ban. The Liberals keep referring to the committee when we ask about the SKS, which is a ubiquitous hunting gun in this country, so I do not trust them at all.

Again, we have been acting in good faith, and here we are with this time allocation motion to limit democratic debate.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we miss the member on the committee, although we welcome his colleague. His contributions to this bill have been important and he is absolutely right.

Waiting in line at the public safety committee is Bill C-20, a bill that would provide important oversight for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, something that, for many year, has been called for to enhance that oversight for the RCMP, but also provide oversight for CBSA for the very first time.

In addition to that, we have Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity. The member is absolutely correct. We have two important bills waiting, but we cannot get to them until we finish Bill C-21.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a few days, it will be one year since the government introduced Bill C‑21. One year is usually enough time for the government and the opposition parties to debate a bill.

That is not what happened with Bill C‑21. The regular debate was held in the House, then the bill was referred to committee. After consulting with experts, the government proposed new amendments on assault weapons. Not everyone was on board, because the government did not communicate its intention properly and withdrew its amendments in February. That left the government 13 weeks before it came back here with another amendment, which it proposed last week.

During those 13 weeks, we could have debated Bill C‑21 and amended it in committee, but we did not because the government was not ready. A week after proposing its new amendments, the government is asking us to limit debate on Bill C‑21.

Does my colleague agree that the only one responsible for the fact that we still have not passed Bill C‑21 is the government, which is unable to work for the people?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the hon. member to read the bill, because there are two provisions in the bill, Bill C-21, that would increase the penalties for firearms crimes from 10 years to 14 years.

It is ludicrous to say that the government is trying to ban all firearms. In fact, we took the time to ensure what we were putting in the bill was respectful of hunters and indigenous peoples, but by the same token keeping Canadians safe from the kinds of firearms that were designed for the battlefield. There is a difference between what hunters are using and what is being used in the battlefield. To conflate the two, as the Conservative Party and the hon. member do, is unfair to Canadians.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been clear since the bill was first introduced that the Conservative Party had no interest in advancing this transformational legislation. Rather than asking relevant questions of officials, last week Conservative members of the committee spent over three hours of the committee's time parroting the speaking points of the gun lobby. In addition to their previous obstruction tactics, this made it clear that the committee was going to be bogged down with unnecessary delays and that it would take not months but years, at that pace, to see the bill reported back to the House.

In fact, the NDP member for New Westminster—Burnaby asked twice for unanimous consent to add 20 hours to the clause-by-clause study of the bill and was twice denied by the Conservative Party. I did the calculation. We are meeting for three hours at the public safety committee tomorrow. In this motion, we are seeking eight and a half hours for two days, which is the equivalent of the committee meeting until June 15 if we were to hold regular meetings.

Non-partisan government officials received death threats due to their appearance at committee as they provided technical advice on the bill, which underscores why it is critical to complete clause-by-clause promptly.

That is why this motion is important today. When I talk about death threats and intimidation, that is something I have been subject to from the gun lobby since 2019, when I first spoke out during the debate on Bill C-71. I have received threats and intimidation, and these are a lot more than “mean tweets”, as the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights calls them. Twice my riding was targeted by the gun lobby, when it visited my riding in 2019 and 2021, and twice the constituents of Oakville North—Burlington have stood up for gun control and the work that we are doing in this House and sent me back to Ottawa in spite of the intimidation tactics that the gun lobby has tried to use against me.

Working in this place as an MP is a privilege I do not take lightly. I have had the opportunity to work on many issues since I was elected, and one that I am most proud of is the actions our government has taken to prevent gun violence. I was elected to this place for the first time in 2015. When one is elected as an MP, a number of things happen very quickly. One learns about the functioning of the House, as one of 338 Canadians who have the privilege to take a seat at the centre of democracy. I was not expecting to be placed on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but I am grateful every day that this is where the whip chose to put me. I have worked hard to learn the file and advocate on difficult subjects, knowing that the issues the public safety committee deals with are ones that fundamentally shape our country, and that our work on it is fundamentally about building a better, safer and fairer Canada: questions surrounding systemic racism and the oversight of law enforcement; how to build a corrections system that upholds human rights and prioritizes rehabilitation; implementing needed safeguards to protect our national security from hostile foreign actors; and, yes, gun control.

Today, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security since 2016, I would like to share the context of where we were, where we are now, where we can go with the passage of Bill C-21, and why it is important to expand the scope of the bill and pass it in a timely matter.

In 2019, Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, received royal assent. Through Bill C-71, our government introduced mandatory lifetime background checks for anyone who applies for a licence to purchase and own firearms, increasing the previous regime from a five-year background check. It also updated the Firearms Act to the modern age by requiring the chief firearms officer to look at a firearms licence applicant's online behaviour for signs of violence when making a determination on whether an individual is eligible to hold a licence. The legislation also required people in businesses to have proof that they are selling non-restricted firearms only to those who are lawfully licensed to possess one. It ensured that when a court issues a prohibition against a person from owning a firearm, the weapon is forfeited to the Crown, instead of giving an individual the ability to give the firearms to a friend or family member. This ensures that those who should not have access to firearms do not.

These measures improved public safety and ensured that those who enjoy the privilege of firearm ownership meet the test of a rigorous licensing regime. At the time, the Conservatives delayed the bill at committee and eventually voted against it in the House.

While many refuse to talk about it, gun control is a women's issue. The Canadian Women's Foundation notes that the presence of firearms in Canadian households is the single greatest risk factor for the lethality of intimate partner violence. Access to a firearm increases the likelihood of femicide by 500%. The Ontario coroner's death review panel said that 26% of women who were killed by their partner were killed using a firearm.

In speaking with groups like the Lethbridge YWCA, they have told me that every single woman who came to their shelter had been threatened by a partner with a firearm. These are among the nearly 2,500 women victimized in this way over the past five years. Intimate partner violence accounts for nearly 30% of all police-reported violent crime in Canada. That number has risen during the pandemic. In my riding and across the country, local organizations like Halton Women's Place are helping shine a brighter light on the dangers of gun violence.

Over the last eight years, we as a country have also become more aware of the role that coercive control plays in abusive relationships. When we add firearms to the mix, it is a recipe for continued physical, emotional and psychological abuse. In fact, coercive control, when a man uses a gun to control women without ever pulling the trigger, is real and happening right now.

An Oakville resident sent me an email that stated, “Let me just say that you can endure the physical and emotional abuse, but when he pulls our a double-barrelled shotgun, loads it and tells you he is going to kill you, then you know true terror! Thank you for looking out for the victims before they become statistics.”

Our government has been advocating, and will continue to advocate, for women, and through Bill C-21, we would be taking additional steps to support survivors of intimate partner violence who have been threatened with or on the receiving end of violence with a firearm.

Bill C-21 would introduce new red and yellow flag laws, allowing courts to remove guns from and suspend the licence of people who pose a danger to themselves or others and would ensure that those individuals subject to a protection order have their firearms licence revoked. Bill C-21 would mark an important next step in removing guns from the hands of abusive partners.

In addition to the creation of these new red flag provisions, Public Safety Canada will establish a program to help raise awareness among victims about how to use the newly proposed provisions and protections. A guide about how to submit an application to the courts and the protections available could be developed, and the program could fund services to support individuals' applications throughout the court process. It would support vulnerable and marginalized groups, including women, people with mental health issues, indigenous groups and other racialized communities, to make certain that the red flag laws would be accessible to all, particularly those who may need it most.

The government will make available $5 million through a contribution program to ensure support and equitable access.

Enhanced licensing and the creation of additional tools for survivors of intimate partner violence is just one way our government would implement stringent gun control that prioritizes public safety, while still respecting those who own and use firearms.

I would like to take a moment to take us back to April 2020 and the tragedy that unfolded in Portapique, Nova Scotia, where 22 innocent lives were lost over the course of a weekend rampage. We were all shocked and heartbroken. As we learned the identities of the victims of these terrible crimes, we were reminded of the tragic impact that gun violence could have on all of our communities, urban and rural, from coast to coast to coast. Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbours were taken from us in a terrible violent way, and far too soon.

Gun violence is not a new thing in our society, but it is made all the more deadly with the proliferation of firearms that are more powerful than ever before. Assault-style firearms, those that were not designed for hunting or sport shooting, have become more and more prevalent in our Canadian retail market. For as long as these guns have existed, they have been capable of inflicting tremendous damage when they fall into the wrong hands.

For decades, chiefs of police, advocacy groups, grieving families and everyday Canadians have called for a ban on these types of firearms, guns that were designed to kill people, intended in their purpose to kill people in the fastest time, and have been used in Canada to kill innocent people.

Canadians have been calling upon successive governments for reform, for stronger gun control. In May 2020, we took additional action through an order in council to ban over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms, including the AR-15.

As retired U.S. Major General Paul Eaton has said, “For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war.” These weapons were designed for the battlefield and have no place on Canadian streets.

Through Bill C-21, we are building on the work done in 2020 to offer a prospective technical definition to ensure that in addition to the weapons banned in 2020, no future similar weapons would ever be able to make it into the Canadian market. It responds to recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission.

Doctors for Protection from Guns called the definition “A victory for science, public health, and Canadian values...to permanently ban future models of assault weapons.”

Dr. Najma Ahmed said, “As a trauma surgeon I can say there is no greater damage done to the human body than that from semi-automatic assault weapons. I invite any Member of Parliament who denies this reality to join me in the operating room.”

This scoping motion before us today would ensure that this technical definition could be included in Bill C-21.

That brings us to where we are today. Bill C-21 puts forward some of the strongest gun control measures in over 40 years. These new measures include implementing a national freeze on hand guns to prevent individuals from bringing newly acquired hand guns into Canada and from buying, selling and transferring hand guns within the country, a freeze which through regulations has been in effect since October 2022; taking away the firearms licenses of those involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment, such as stalking; and fighting gun smuggling and trafficking by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools for law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes and strengthening border security measures.

Over 75% of firearm deaths in our country are by suicide, and there are provisions in the bill to help medical professionals and others ensure that firearms do not remain in the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others.

The new amendments that are outlined in the scoping motion before us include tackling ghost guns, guns that are privately manufactured, or 3-D printed. This is probably one of the most important things we can do for law enforcement in Bill C-21 to support them with the emerging prevalence of ghost guns.

Members of the public safety committee visited the RCMP gun vault and were able to see how quick and easy it was for criminals to 3-D print firearms illegally. Police services across the country have told me how worried they are about ghost guns infiltrating our communities.

Investigators like Michael Rowe of the Vancouver Police Department, who appeared at our committee during our study on guns and gangs, emphasized the need to create legislative solutions to address this gap so police would have the tools to apprehend those creating these ghost guns.

During his appearance at committee, Inspector Rowe said:

...one of the trends we're seeing out here in Vancouver right now is the use of privately made firearms or “ghost guns”. During the gang conflict, we're seeing more ghost guns, specifically in the hands of people who are involved in active murder conspiracies or people who are believed to be working as hired contract killers. Ghost guns can be 3-D printed or modified from what's called a Polymer80 handgun...

Modern 3-D printing materials can produce a durable firearm, capable of shooting hundreds of rounds without a failure. For example, one of my teams recently completed an investigation in which we executed search warrants on a residential home. Inside this home, we located a sophisticated firearms manufacturing operation capable of producing 3-D printed firearms. They had firearm suppressors and they were completing airsoft conversions—converting airsoft pistols into fully functioning firearms.

The amendments before us in Bill C-21 are in direct response to Inspector Rowe's ask, which was:

...I'd respectfully like to submit that a potential solution would be to bring in legislative remedies to regulate the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. This type of legislation would give us, the police, the necessary tools to be able to seize these items, get active enforcement action and more effectively target the manufacturing of privately made firearms.

Our proposed amendments to Bill C-21 would do just that.

Police services across the country are sounding the alarm on this problem, and the amendments we are introducing to address ghost guns is another reason Bill C-21 is such an essential piece of legislation that would increase our public safety.

I would like to share the words of Noor Samiei. Noor was there that night at the Danforth shooting. She lost of best friend, Reese Fallon. Noor, Reese and their friends had graduated high school and were out to celebrate Noor's birthday with friends.

Here are Noor's words:

“What started off as a night of excitement in celebrating my 18th birthday ended in sheer horror and misery. It has been almost five years since the Danforth shooting, and I still struggle to find the words to speak about what my friends and I experienced that night.”

“There will never be enough words to adequately convey how beautiful Reese was. As cliche as it sounds, she was unlike anyone I've ever met before.”

“Another word for friendship is love. Friendship is one of the sweetest and most purest forms of love. Reese was love personified. She radiated so much light and shined so bright in any room she stepped foot in. She had a love so strong that nothing or no one could take that away.”

“While some may argue we were in the wrong place at the wrong time, it does not take away from the fact that it was a legally imported handgun that was later stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan. That's why legislation is vital and crucial.”

Canadians are calling on us to take action.

Bill C-21 would save lives, because the status quo is not good enough for Canadians. The status quo led to people like Reese not being here today. The status quo led to the slaughter of women at Polytechnique, the shooting rampage in Nova Scotia, the devastating taking of life at Dawson College and the mosque in Quebec City. The status quo has led to firearms deaths from coast to coast to coast.

In my religion, we are taught that the gift of grace has been given to us by God so that we may give it to others, even if we do not think they deserve it.

We do not deserve Noor's grace, but we are given it anyway.

Let us do something with that gift. Let us pass this motion before us, so we can efficiently deal with Bill C-21 in committee and the House and save lives.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would also like to acknowledge the impact colonization has had on indigenous peoples, with overincarceration and overrepresentation in the foster care system, and the impact it has had on missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

I am pleased to begin debate today on the motion before the House and speak about the importance not only of this motion but of passing Bill C-21 in a timely manner.

Last week, we introduced a number of important amendments that reflected conversations had across this country with Canadians and indigenous peoples. I will acknowledge that we needed to step back and ensure that we got Bill C-21 right, and the time we took was important to do that.

We have introduced a new amendment to ensure that we do not derogate from the section 35 charter rights of indigenous peoples. We have introduced a technical definition to prohibit firearms that inflict the most casualties in the least amount of time, while respecting hunters, as well as a suite of measures to address the rise of ghost guns.

It has been clear since the bill was first introduced that the Conservative Party had no interest—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be supporting this amendment. Having had the opportunity to meet with the RCMP in Surrey, British Columbia, it was an eye-opener to see the extent to which a 3-D printer with the possibility of certain software plus legally-obtained firearms components, obtained without a PAL, and the possession of ammunition, all of these things added together.... Law enforcement officials indicated how difficult it was currently, with the current law, to do the appropriate follow-up.

As I've mentioned many times, and I know law enforcement has mentioned this as well, in the streets across this country, in certain regions like mine, ghost guns have increased exponentially over the course of the last year or two. This isn't an issue that is slowly developing, this is an issue that is exploding. There were 20,000 seized ghost guns in the United States, and the Biden administration is taking action. Canada needs to take similar action and equip law enforcement with the ability to crack down on criminals.

Essentially, Bill C-21 is becoming more of a bill that is cracking down on criminal behaviour. These ghost gun provisions are vitally important to that. We have to crack down on criminals, cut off their source, and make sure they do not have untraceable firearms. That's a danger to the public; there is no doubt. It's a danger to all of us, so I'll be supporting this amendment.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

I was thinking about tabling a subamendment to allow the government to regulate airsoft guns, but I have just been told that this is already possible. I will therefore vote in favour of Mr. Julian's amendment.

That said, I want to say quite clearly to the airsoft community that I was going to table precisely the same amendment in order to withdraw any reference to airsoft in bill C‑21.

Thank you.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Julian for tabling this amendment, as well as Mr. MacGregor, with whom the committee had worked previously on this important issue.

As Ms. Damoff stated, when we visited the RCMP's vault, we were able to see how easy it is to convert an airgun into a real firearm, because the components of a firearm fit easily into the housings of an air gun. However, as my colleagues have mentioned, I think it would be a step too far to prohibit air guns in bill C‑21.

Moreover, when industry representatives came to testify before the committee, they were very conciliatory and said they were open to the idea that the industry be regulated. I will quote part of the opening statement given by Mr. Brian McIlmoyle, the director of ASIC, the Airsoft in Canada association, when he testified before the committee:

We believe the best means to mitigate these risks is an 18‑plus restriction on the purchase of airsoft, which would prevent children from buying airsoft without parental knowledge. In addition, a legal acknowledgment of risk or waiver, when signed and combined with some clear educational material, will impress upon parents and young adults the importance and very mortal responsibility of owning airsoft gear.

He also stated that he was willing to go further and made the following proposal:

[...], ASIC has studied a self-regulatory system similar to the United Kingdom's Airsoft Retailers Association and the UK's Violent Crime Reduction Act, which stipulates membership in an airsoft association in order to possess airsoft. This kind of measure would require a higher administrative overhead, but there is a feasible appetite for it within our community.

To which he added:

These measures benefit from joint positions with the FSAQ, or Fédération Sportive d'Airsoft du Québec; the AABC, Airsoft Association of British Columbia; and the CSAAA, the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association.

By the way, I would just like to thank the FSAQ, which helped us in our work.

Mr. McIlmoyle ended his presentation with this:

We suggest that this committee empower the Governor in Council to work with consulted bodies such as ASIC to more comprehensively and exhaustively defined “ replica firearm” and/or “airsoft” through regulation. We hope today that the committee can work with our community to develop a solution.

I now have a question for the public servants.

Are you able to confirm that the government is currently able to regulate airsoft guns without these guns being expressly mentioned in bill C‑21? Is there something in the bill right how that would allow the government to regulate airsoft guns?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Amendment G‑3.2 seeks to amend clause 1 of bill C‑21 by adding, after line 15 on page 1, sections 1(1.1) and 1(1.2). It also seeks to add a paragraph (e) at the definition of a “prohibited firearm” at subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code. I am suggesting that we replace “was originally designed with” by “is designed to accept” at subparagraph (e)(ii).

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 64 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

The committee resumes the debate on amendment G-3.2. I will now welcome the officials who are with us today, once again.

From the Department of Justice, we have Marianne Breese, counsel, criminal law policy section; Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director, general firearms policy.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Mr. Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; and Ms. Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program.

Thank you for joining us again. We look forward to your valuable contributions as we proceed.

We will continue the speaking list from our last meeting. Mr. Motz had the floor. However, he is not present, so we will continue with Ms. Damoff, followed by Madame Michaud and then Mr. Julian.

Ms. Damoff, please go ahead, if you will.

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for ensuring that the debate stays relevant.

Certainly the amount of money the Liberal government is spending is critical to every bill, so thank you, Madam Speaker, for overseeing the discussion as I continue my interaction here today.

As I was saying, the finance minister indicated that she would use fiscal restraint. I do not believe she did so. If I could go even further back to when Bill S-6 was first being discussed, which was last spring before we broke for the summer recess, it was at that time and even into the fall that the finance minister indicated she was going to implement an idea that our leader has committed to: the “pay as you go” system. She said she would have fiscal restraint, but I do not believe she has that. Last year, at the end of the spring session, Bill S-6 was being discussed, as well as the “pay as you go” system, but both of these things did not happen.

In relation to our economy, I talked about Canadians being frustrated, defeated and exhausted. I am sure members saw the article in The Globe and Mail today indicating that this point in Canadian history is the worst time for new small business start-ups. This touches my heart very much. I know members have heard me speak before about how I come from a small business family in Calgary Midnapore. For me, growing up, small business was always front of mind. This included regulations, and I believe small businesses will struggle with the changing regulations indicated in Bill S-6. Again, if we look across the different departments, we can see how this can happen. Those are a couple of points in relation to Bill S-6.

I will also point out that in Bill S-6, with the way the government legislates and operates in general, the language is consistently filled with jargon, with words and phrases that are difficult for Canadians to interpret. I started out this speech by talking about how legislation should be for Canadians. It is the common Canadian we should be legislating for. When we have phrases that are too complex for Canadians to understand, it does not help them. It does not empower them. We need to do that.

With that, I would like to take a moment to talk about the plain language law that we would implement once we are in government, again in an effort to get government working for Canadians instead of having Canadians work for the government, as we are seeing in this case. I thought that was a very important point to mention.

As shadow minister for the Treasury Board, another place where I see this take place is with the public accounts. There needs to be much revision to the public accounts and how they are presented. I do not believe Canadians understand them in the format they are in presently. I always share the story that in my home growing up, like the concept we have in our home, a budget was like this: We bring in this much money as a household, we spend this much money as a household and we save this much money as a household. I do not believe the public accounts reflect a simple concept such as this, a concept that many Canadian households and many Canadians sitting around the dinner table have to follow. Again, this is in relation to the jargon, the lack of plain language and the complexity we see in regulations and legislation from the government, which is relevant to Bill S-6.

We also talk about Bill S-6 being indicative of another concept, which is very dear to the official opposition and the heart of our leader: getting rid of the gatekeepers. That essentially means making it easier for Canadians to live, to conduct business and to have the quality of life they deserve, which the government is not delivering to them, as evidenced by some of the earlier indicators I gave.

We as the official opposition have provided some constructive ideas for getting rid of the gatekeepers.

For example, our opposition day motion that was presented yesterday talked about getting rid of the municipal gatekeepers, which, coming from Calgary, I have had an opportunity to see first-hand at Calgary City Council. Having done some advocacy work at the civic level, I can say that all governments must be working together, pulling in the same direction in an effort to provide Canadians with the best standard of living, and that includes housing.

Especially when we consider the ambitious immigration targets of the current government, we need to seriously and sincerely consider how we are going to accommodate all of these newcomers. Again, I say this as an Albertan. Alberta is a place of incredible growth and we are so happy that so many new Canadians and so many Canadians who have abided in other places are making the choice to come to Alberta, but we need to seriously consider how we are going to support our citizens.

In his opposition day motion speech yesterday, my leader talked about how we will incentivize those municipalities that make the decision to build more homes for Canadians, and we will not reward those that do not. This is an excellent example of where we have to think about the gatekeepers. Bill S-6 is just an indicator that there are so many gatekeepers across government, when we have to make these minute changes to legislation which seems applicable to ages ago, including things as simple as removing stickers from liquid vending machines. It is astounding to me that these types of things are coming to light now.

Another example I will give of the official opposition's desire to get rid of the gatekeepers is our unique idea to bring home doctors and nurses and to allow for a Blue Seal in the same way that we have the Red Seal in the trade professions. That is wonderful. It is just fantastic how we have more young people joining the trades. I am especially excited about more young women joining the trades. I am certainly glad to see some of the legislation, even if it is at a provincial level, allowing young women to feel comfortable in joining the trades. Whether it is providing safe and clean restrooms for them or whether it is providing equipment that is suitable for their size and stature, whatever that may be, that is just excellent.

Our leader and the official opposition have found that the licensing bodies create endless barriers and red tape, which again is a topic that is talked about much in Bill S-6, resulting in an unnecessary, even greater shortage of doctors and nurses. I would like to quote this sentence from my leader. He said, “The Blue Seal will mean that it won’t matter where someone comes from, it matters what they can do.” That is just fantastic. If these doctors and nurses meet our Blue Seal standards, they will be able to work in our health care system. Again, this is just another example of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, looking for true efficiencies.

Bill S-6 addresses these tiny things. Really our energies could be spent on addressing much larger problems and finding efficiencies in larger problems rather than, in many cases of Bill S-6, providing opportunities for even more legislation through regulation.

I will add that legislation by regulation has not always resulted in the best outcomes for Canadians. I know that as we discuss Bill C-290 in the government operations committee right now, we are discussing, for example, the role of the public service integrity commissioner. A big discussion around these debates on Bill C-290 is really to decide how much leeway we will give the public service integrity commissioner in terms of regulation.

These are significant things that touch upon workers and will gravely determine whether a public servant decides to file a grievance and if they feel comfortable in doing so. This is something that is very important.

Another situation where we saw regulation was not sufficiently applied, for this official opposition, was the order in council regarding firearms. My goodness, that was before the pandemic, so three or four years ago now. That is a time when it most probably should have been legislation. Of course, we are going through the Bill C-21 process right now, which the Conservatives oppose. No matter what the wolf in sheep's clothing looks like, we will oppose Bill C-21. That is an example where regulation was used and perhaps should not have been. Perhaps it should have been left to legislation. This is most definitely another example.

I look through these different examples. There are other examples that my colleagues will talk about this evening, things they are very concerned about, interpretations of endangered species, for example. Again, there are more topics filled with jargon, but members will give their comments as well as to what interpretation of this legislation will mean through regulation.

It is something important to keep in mind, because, as I indicated, legislation should be made by the people for the people. This is something the official opposition, the Conservatives, are committed to. I think about how we are going to deal with the complex issues ahead of us, such as artificial intelligence, if we are talking about liquids coming out of vending machines.

Bill S-6 brings back the complexity, the jargon and the gatekeepers of this legislation. We on this side of the House want to have legislation that works for every Canadian in every single home, my home, all our homes, so let us bring it home and let us re-evaluate Bill S-6.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

On a question of privilege, Madam Chair, I've been waiting to confirm that this information I received from an outside party was correct.

This is a question of privilege. I believe some of the amendments and subamendments from this committee were shared with a stakeholder. That goes to the point that my colleague from the Bloc was making, that people have been talking to outside groups, including two political parties here.

I have an email that I am going to read. I also have a French translation that was kindly provided my friend Alexis from the Bloc.

I'm going to read this email that I received April 28, 2023, and then I'm going to go into the point of privilege and what I believe the role of the chair is. This is what I was told:

Following up on our conversation in committee, there are two sets of amendments to Bill S-245 related to the after-first generation exceptions in the Citizenship Act:

Here's where my concerns begin.

NDP-1, NDP-3, NDP-5, NDP-8, NDP-12, G-2, G-6, G-7, G-8, and G-9.

Then it continues on:

From our perspective—

This is from the stakeholder group. I don't blame the stakeholder; this is not their fault. This is something that happened here at committee between parliamentarians. I was not included, and thankfully there are no CPC amendments affected by this.

From our perspective, the NDP amendments best address the issue of family separation/lost mobility for Canadians who work abroad because the connection test can be met by parent or grandparent and has a threshold that Canadians can meet naturally. One big problem with existing law is that it treats citizens so differently that nobody really understands it, so this last point is very important.

It goes on:

The Liberal amendments have the advantage of a grant that can be met at any point in time. If you miss the residency requirement before you have children, you can make it up. But the test is one that a great many people will miss even if they stay connected in Canada.

Here is the sentence in the next paragraph that's most important to me, because this is exactly what's happened here on amendment NDP-3, which is, I believe, a breach of the privileges of the committee:

What I have heard about the Liberal NDP compromise is that they will offer subamendments—

That has just happened.

—to the NDP amendments to increase the connection test to 1,095 days—

The subamendment made the reference back to the substantial connection test.

—only for parents—

We just removed grandparents.

—and by right vs. grant.

I asked the officials whether this was by right versus by grant.

The stakeholder group then goes into the details describing their preference.

I went back to Bosc and Gagnon. On page 1,062, it says:

Notices of motions normally remain confidential until they are moved during a meeting, although the sponsoring member may choose to make it public prior to doing so.

This would mean that any member controls their amendments. The government side and opposition side will control their amendments. We're allowed to give those out. I'm entirely okay with what people do.

It continues, in Bosc and Gagnon, on page 1,005:

When there is sufficient time, if the committee agrees, the package can be circulated in advance of the clause-by-clause consideration meeting, ensuring that all members of the committee may see the amendments that their colleagues wish to make to the bill.

That's the enumeration of the bills that we have. Those amendments can be shared amongst ourselves as parties meet confidentially.

Everybody has perked up. I'm glad I have everybody's attention.

We can meet. We get the numbering of all our amendments. It just makes it easier to work out which amendments we like and which amendments we don't like amongst parliamentarians on this committee. That's fine.

These practices combine such that the usual practice in committees of the House is that notices of amendments are treated as confidential when submitted to the clerk of the committee until the sponsoring member moves them during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Now, I have an example of what happened at another committee, because I think it's very relevant to what's happened here. Occasionally, exceptions are made by committees and not by individual members. This is the example I have.

Last fall, there was a debate on Parliament Hill about the Liberal government's overreach with amendments G-4 and G-46 to Bill C-21, which is the firearms confiscation bill that the government has before the public safety committee. It's still before the public safety committee. That committee, while debating amendment G-4, also agreed to make public amendment G-46.

We have no such agreement here that I understand. Reading from this email, it's indicative that a person knew the numbering of our amendments and knew what subamendments were going to be made at committee at some point. I didn't know about any of this, and I believe that's a breach of the privileges of the committee.

Now, they agreed to that, and ahead of it being moved at the appropriate stage of clause-by-clause consideration, that agreement can be found. It's recorded at the beginning of the public safety committee's minutes for November 24, 2022. If the extra legislative clerk wants to go check, it's there.

Again, that said, it's acknowledged and common practice for members to engage with stakeholders in policy development which could extend to developing those policies in the expression of legislation, including amendments to bills.

It's not, however, appropriate to take the amendments that have been filed with the clerk, especially other parties' amendments, and share them with stakeholders or the public at large for comment. It's a protected document at the committee.

The approach of the public safety committee on releasing amendment G-46 to Bill C-21 shows, I think, the correct method of proceeding and the correct way of doing it. This stakeholder group did not have the right to know which amendments were which, or what subamendments would be moved, especially because they knew the strategy of when they would be moved.

Based on the communications I have received, we know he had possession of the committee's amendment package and not merely draft text yet to be finalized and filed. He cited amendments by their reference numbers, which are assigned to them by the clerk of the committee. There's no other way for him to know which ones are NDP-1, NDP-2, NDP-3, NDP-4 and the enumeration of which ones were in there.

It makes me glad that the Conservatives didn't submit any amendments despite, Madam Chair, my having moved an amendment when we were going into this, to give us extra time to submit them. I'm glad I didn't do that now, because I don't know if they would have been made public or given to the stakeholder group.

Because the draft amendment package has been shared with members of the public, a possible breach of privilege has occurred, and the committee must report the matter to the House for appropriate consideration. On the committee chair's role, this is from the online “Privileges and Immunities” chapter:

Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or, in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter.

It goes on to say:

The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and it's not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member's interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate, or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, the Chair will rule accordingly giving reasons. The committee cannot then consider the matter further as a question of privilege. Should a Member disagree with the Chair's decision, the Member can appeal the decision to the committee.... The committee may sustain or overturn the Chair's decision.

I have the motion ready and written out, Madam Chair, if you find that it was a breach of privilege. I can give you a copy, if you want to consider that.

I also have the email from the stakeholder who gave it to me. Madam Chair, I'm more than happy to give it to you so you can take a look at it. I think you will find it's egregious. It is a violation, I believe, of my privileges as a member and those of my colleagues who were not privy to any of these conversations.

Amendments are supposed to be confidential to the committee. We can share our own. I know that's a practice that is done regularly. There are sentences here that talk about subamendments that were just done in NDP-3.

I believe there was a breach of privileges of the committee, and my privileges as a member, because I was not party to any of this, and there is an outside member of the public who knew what the subamendment strategy was of certain members of this committee.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay, Mr. Chair, then I'm going to have to continue, because we need some more answers here, more clarity. We don't trust that there isn't something being pulled over gun owners right now. Given the track record of the Liberals on this committee and the minister, I think it's reasonable that we have this hesitation about this specific definition.

What is being done today just doesn't follow. It doesn't make sense, based on the rhetoric, that they would bring forward this forward-looking clause. I haven't heard any explanation of why that is being done.

I'm also not reassured that this firearms committee is not just a back door to banning the very long list they withdrew. It sounded like, from the minister yesterday, that it could be the case. Again, I don't know why he would announce these things together if we couldn't talk about it in the context of Bill C-21 today in this committee and get real answers about the composition of that committee and about high-capacity magazines. Why he would confuse people, I don't understand, given the mass confusion he created with these amendments a few months ago by convoluting these things. That's not on us; that's on the minister for doing that.

It's frustrating that we can't get clarity on what a firearms advisory committee would look like, what they're allowed to do and what the deal is with high-capacity magazines. Are Lee-Enfields being banned? Are tubular magazines being banned?

Just to be clear, Conservatives are quite disappointed. We cannot get the clarity for gun owners on this that they need, given their reasonable apprehension and fear, which was created over the last five months with amendments G-4 and G-46.

Mr. Chair, that's all I have at this time, but, again, I would urge you to urge the parliamentary secretary to talk to the minister about another technical briefing. That could certainly help things go along, especially considering that the good-faith measure to park this clause for now to get to the rest of the bill was not approved, which would have allowed us to get to the other important measures and get more answers in the interim. I think that it was a good-faith measure. It was certainly made in good faith.

I don't know why we can't do that, but anyway, that's all for now, Mr. Chair.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Chair, just to conclude, we were provided a technical briefing basically minutes after getting the slide deck for all of this. We are getting a lot of questions.

The minister is responsible for this because he announced, within the scope of Bill C-21, the announcements that we're talking about today.

I would appreciate, and I think members of the media, stakeholders and other members of Parliament would appreciate a fulsome briefing now that we've had a bit more time to digest what these amendments mean and what the capacity and magazine restrictions will mean. What is the makeup of this firearms advisory committee? Who is going to be on that? How was that decided? How can gun owners trust that it won't be biased?

These are basic questions that we need answers to.

As the lead on public safety, I would ask that you consult with the parliamentary secretary for public safety on providing another amendment. I believe there is time because we know now there won't be any more time for another public safety meeting this week, which we know Liberals are supportive of. That time's freed up, so why not have a technical briefing where we can ask more questions now that we've had time to digest this and have a few more answers from officials?

Mr. Chair, perhaps you can respond on whether you will have that conversation with the parliamentary secretary, and then I'm done.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I did want to note that there have been no consultations through this committee process on this forward-looking clause. Had there been, we may have gotten more clarity on what exactly this means.

Again, it seems that there's a trick being pulled here because it just doesn't add up at all. There were no consultations done on this. When we were at G-4 and G-46, the government conceded that, because they were so significant as the largest hunting rifle ban in history, we were going to have eight consultation meetings as a result.

Now here we have a new definition, Mr. Chair, and no consultation on it that the committee gets to do. It just seems very strange.

The NDP did view this as out of scope before and the Bloc was open to that. It is just odd that we needed so much consultation on the prior one. Now we have a new one, yet we're not allowed to consult and we're being criticized for asking an hour's worth of questions on something that may be very significant. I'm not really clear on that.

Secondly, I appreciate that Ms. Damoff mentioned a poll, but for the government's own consultation, when I asked for an information request on public consultations on Bill C-21, they provided us information on a $200,000 consultation. Of the 133,369 people who were consulted through that, 77% of them responded that nothing more was needed to limit access to so-called assault weapons and 81% said no to limiting more access to handguns.

This is $200,000 and almost 200,000 people consulted, and the evidence was quite clear from their response. It doesn't really add up with that one poll that probably polled about 1,500 people, maybe 400 even.... Just to be clear, the government's own evidence was not in favour of this from a public opinion side.

Lastly on that, Mr. Chair, we know that when the government says “assault-style”, they really mean hunting rifles. That was established in G-4 and G-46, which was why, it seems, the government withdrew them. It was established by hunting associations across the country. We have talked about a number of hunting rifles that are commonly used. The SKS, for example, is very commonly used as a hunting rifle in indigenous communities and others. It's just a bit frustrating in that regard.

It's not clear on capacity. I recognize that's been informed now. It's clear now. It's not in the bill, but magazine capacity does impact a lot of these firearms and it's disappointing we don't really get to ask any questions about that.

Also, I will ask a question on the firearms advisory committee.

Is this new firearms advisory committee included in the bill? When asked about banning the SKS, the minister said that they were referring it to this firearms advisory committee. Is that in the bill? Is that being brought forward through this bill?

That is for the officials.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

—on the admissibility of amendment G.32 in relation to the scope of Bill C-21.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

I just wanted to add a clarification regarding Mr. Motz's and Mr. Julian's remarks that it was premature to think about how the Speaker of the House will rule once Bill C‑21 is at report stage in the House.

I find it a little peculiar to be hearing this at this point, because just before the government withdrew its amendments G‑4 and G‑46, the NDP was about to introduce a motion calling on the Speaker of the House to rule on the scope of Bill C‑21.

As Ms. Damoff says, if your ruling is being challenged, Mr. Chair, perhaps we should go to a vote now. Otherwise, I would be willing to go back to debating the amendment.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

To Mr. Julian's point, and to yours that you just made in your intervention, I would agree. I think because of the importance of this particular definition and the impact on this bill and the impact on law-abiding firearms owners in this country and on manufacturers and the entire industry, if you will, this is something that we have to go through with some vigour and we need to discuss all aspects of it and understand it completely. The suggestion that since we're taking a long time on this particular amendment this is how it will be all of the time is simply untrue. I think we can be quite judicious on some of the other amendments moving forward.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I am hopeful there will be some time to further digest this definition, but it doesn't appear as if there's any willingness by some of the other parties to do that. I will go back to something that I started with Bill C-21 when we first began our debate back in the fall. That has to do with scope. I've had conversations with many people on both sides of the aisle since Bill C-21 was introduced. You know, Bill C-21 was introduced as a handgun bill. It was debated in the House of Commons as a handgun bill, yet the majority of our debates at this particular committee since the new definitions have come out have had to do with long guns and shotguns, and they're completely out of scope.

If I understand parliamentary process, it would be reasonable, on the expansion of the scope, to go back to the House to be determined whether it is in scope, or the government could decide to put something forward so that it could be debated in the House and then brought back here to committee and we could continue to have this conversation. In fact, that may be something that the government should consider—actually bringing this definition and the new additions to this bill back to the House for debate.

Unfortunately I tried to do this last time on a motion. You ruled it to be in order and within scope. I disagreed and some horsepower in the House disagreed with you as well. That's still an opportunity that exists. Canadians heard us in the House debating a bill about handguns. Now, for the last six months or so we've been talking about long guns and shotguns and hunting rifles and things that impact a wider range of Canadians than the handgun freeze or ban or buyback process does. Now we're involving the livelihood of Canadians, the pastimes of Canadians and sustenance for Canadians who are now impacted by this particular bill.

My suggestion is that we give consideration to the fact that this definition and some of the amendments to this bill are out of scope. That would be a motion that I would present to this committee—that it be sent back to the House to have determined whether or not it is in scope and have the Speaker make that ruling.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I will move on to other questions. I just have serious concerns, Mr. Chair, regarding this, because if it includes tubular magazines that includes things like the Winchester lever action, which is a very old wood stock classic gun used by farmers and hunters that very much is Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle. The Lee–Enfield gun is also Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle. I'm just very concerned that we don't have clarity on this. He announced it within the scope of the Bill C-21 amendments. If we can't get more clarity, I'm very concerned that we're not going to be able to answer the many questions we're receiving. Lots of people have tubular magazine long guns, and the Lee-Enfield is about as ubiquitous as the SKS.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay. The reason I ask is that it was announced when he was talking about Bill C-21, so he was announcing that there's a new definition and no list, and he was also announcing this. I'm getting a lot of questions about this.

I believe that the officials at the table right now are those who would be supporting those new regulations regarding magazine capacity. Can we have answers on those specifics? How do we get answers on what that means? It is all involved in this conversation as per the minister's announcement, and it's not clear.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to everyone for being back here again. We're talking about Bill C-21. What a pleasure.

I have to start off by making some comments about my colleague across the table Ms. Damoff's opening remarks.

Ms. Damoff, we've had a nice working relationship I believe up until now. I don't think I'm an ultrapartisan guy, but some of your remarks quite frankly use a bad analogy. You kind of took a fully automatic weapon and mowed us all down with your opening remarks about all of your Conservative colleagues across the table spreading misinformation. I take offence to that.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate the responses.

I want to clarify a couple of things I've heard to date, to make sure that we're up to speed. One is that this new definition applies only to firearms that are going to be manufactured after Bill C-21 passes. Should Bill C-21 pass and receive royal assent, it then becomes anything manufactured after that. Is that correct?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Semi-automatic action is—and this is quoting Murray Smith from the RCMP—“where much of the loading action is done automatically by the firearm. It's kind of like having an automatic transmission on a car versus a standard.” It is automatic for the user.

All of these actions, like bolt, lever, hinge and pump—actions that require more manual effort to reload—remain unaffected by this new proposed definition. For folks following along at home, we're talking about guns that fire larger bullets and for which most of the loading is done automatically. This seems pretty reasonable to me, and it certainly does to the members on this side.

The next criterion that must be met is a firearm that “was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more”. Again, for those at home, we can refer to cartridges colloquially as bullets. It's also important to note that the legal magazine capacity in Canada is five. Anything larger is deemed to be too big and is illegal. We're only talking about guns that fire a large number of bullets, where much of the loading action is done automatically. The definition is forward-looking only. It applies only to guns that have not been invented yet.

In the amendments I submitted yesterday, I also included a provision that will ensure that there's a five-year legislative review of this definition to ensure the right balance has been struck.

In summary, this definition only applies to future guns that are designed to fire a large number of big bullets, where much of the loading action is done automatically. In the words of Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, these amendments are “A victory for science, public health, and Canadian values”.

What we have before us is a reasonable and technical definition. It also—and I want to stress this—does not take away from the firearms that were deemed prohibited in the 2020 order in council that banned 1,500 kinds of assault-style firearms, including the AR-15, from our country. Those firearms remain prohibited.

Today what we have before us are new amendments, including a new technical definition that provides clarity and sets an objective standard of what constitutes a prohibited weapon. It's a technical definition that the majority of Canadians support, and it was supported by the Mass Casualty Commission.

I've been on this public safety committee since I was elected in 2015. I've met with and listened to survivors of gun violence, domestic abuse and mass shootings, who have worked with our government to introduce legislation to strengthen gun control and enhance our public safety. That's why, in my community of Oakville North—Burlington, I hear from my constituents about the need to strengthen our gun control laws. One life lost to gun violence is one too many.

As someone who has advocated for eight years for a strategy to address and prevent gun violence, it gives me great pride to be part of a government that's introduced this legislation, which is the strongest piece of gun control legislation in our lifetimes.

I was really disappointed to see that already my colleagues across the way in the Conservative Party are spreading misinformation. Bill C-21 is a strong piece of legislation, and it has important aspects beyond the technical definition I've talked about today. Canadians are concerned about their safety and about gun violence. There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to address gun violence and crime, but Bill C-21 is one tool in our tool box to address gun violence specifically and to ban guns that were designed to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time. It will bolster border and law enforcement capacity, reduce the number of firearms in circulation in Canada, stop gun crime before it starts, create red-flag and yellow-flag laws, and provide resources to help combat domestic violence involving firearms.

We're making critical investments in housing, mental health supports and youth programs to address the root causes of crime and to set young people up for success. We also created the first-ever action plan to end gender-based violence. All these investments and actions by our government, including Bill C-21, are part of our government's broader strategy to keep Canadians safe and healthy. Bill C-21 is a critical bill that needs to be passed as soon as possible.

I just want to reiterate, Mr. Chair, that we all need to be taking a public health approach to gun control. This is one part of that approach.

I call on my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to move G-3.1, which deals with ghost guns or 3-D printed guns, as they're also known.

Essentially, when G-4 was withdrawn, an important part of that amendment was a change in paragraph (i) that would incorporate firearm parts into the legislation. That is important because ghost guns, or 3-D printed guns, rely on actual firearm parts in order to be usable.

All members can agree that this growing issue needs to be addressed urgently. It was actually part of our study on guns and gangs, which we were able to produce a unanimous report on. Many of us went to the RCMP gun vault, and we were able to see how quick and easy it is for criminals to 3-D print the receiver portion of a firearm illegally.

I met with police services across the country who told me how worried they are about ghost guns infiltrating our communities. Investigators, like Michael Rowe of the Vancouver police service, whom colleagues will remember, appeared at our committee during our study on guns and gangs. My colleague Mr. Noormohamed and I met him in Vancouver. He emphasized the need to create legislative solutions to address this gap so that police would have the tools they need to apprehend those who are creating ghost guns.

I'm just going to quote some of Inspector Rowe's testimony from when he appeared at committee. He said:

For example, one of the trends we're seeing out here in Vancouver right now is the use of privately made firearms or “ghost guns”. During the gang conflict, we're seeing more ghost guns, specifically in the hands of people who are involved in active murder conspiracies or people who are believed to be working as hired contract killers. Ghost guns can be 3-D printed or modified from what's called a Polymer80 handgun....

Modern 3-D printing materials can produce a durable firearm capable of shooting hundreds of rounds without a failure. For example, one of my teams recently completed an investigation in which we executed search warrants on a residential home. Inside this home, we located a sophisticated firearms manufacturing operation capable of producing 3-D printed firearms. They had firearm suppressors and they were completing airsoft conversions—converting airsoft pistols into fully functioning firearms.

This amendment that I put forward, colleagues, is in direct response to Inspector Rowe's ask, where he said:

I'd respectfully like to submit that a potential solution would be to bring in legislative remedies to regulate the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. This type of legislation would give us, the police, the necessary tools to be able to seize these items, get active enforcement action and more effectively target the manufacturing of privately made firearms.

Police services across the country are sounding the alarm on this problem, and the amendments we're introducing to address ghost guns are another reason Bill C-21 is an essential piece of legislation that would increase public safety.

There are also many amendments coming forward that will add the words “firearm part” to legislation, and this would help address the ever-growing problem of ghost guns in our country.

In order to do all of the other pieces that we need to do with firearm parts, we first need to pass G-3.1. Therefore, I'm asking for everyone's support on an issue that is a growing concern across the country. It will actually put us ahead of gangs and organized crime, and it will truly make a difference for police services right across the country.

I'm hoping that colleagues will support this.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I believe we have consensus. Thanks, all of you.

That being said, we shall carry on with our further business.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments related to firearms. The committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

I welcome, once again, after a long absence, our officials. It's good to see you. We'll do our best to get this done.

At the point when we last engaged in clause-by-clause, we were embroiled in a vigorous debate on amendment G-4, which has been withdrawn. That effectively adjourns that particular debate.

We will continue.

I'm sorry. I forgot to introduce our officials.

From the Department of Justice, we have Marianne Breese, counsel, criminal law policy section; Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, and Kellie Paquette, director general, both from the Canadian firearms program.

Once again, thank you for joining us today. Your participation is much appreciated.

We will recommence as close as I can figure out to where we are.

You all should have received a new package of amendments. We start at this point with G-3. I believe that is standing in the name of Ms. Damoff.

Please go ahead.

(On clause 1)

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

For the Diefenbaker government, I was not there. I never met John Diefenbaker, but I knew his executive assistant. MP Maguire met John Diefenbaker.

He was first elected prime minister in 1957 in a minority, but he had an overwhelming, smashing victory in 1958, winning many seats. He was only to be surpassed in the number of seats by Brian Mulroney's victory in 1984.

Apparently, in 1958, with the election of the Diefenbaker government:

...greater use was made of standing committees; for the first time, a member of the official opposition was chosen to chair the Public Accounts Committee—

Imagine that. The Conservative government of John Diefenbaker expanded the roles of committees and said examining the spending of government accounts by the public accounts committee is not something that should be chaired by a government member. They, in government, said, “We should have an opposition member chair the public accounts committee.”

Is that a dedication to ministerial accountability? That's a belief in our parliamentary system like we don't see these days.

Again, I will read it, “for the first time, a member of the official opposition was chosen to chair the Public Accounts committee and the Committee began to hold regular meetings”. That's a good concept.

In 1968 there were more significant reforms made to House procedures, including the following—and remember, I don't know what time of the year it was in 1968 that it happened. It could have been under Prime Minister Pearson, or it could have been under newly elected Prime Minister Trudeau, who was fresh faced, and there was Trudeaumania. If it was under him, with all the world before him to change the world and use government for good with an unusual respect for Parliament for the Liberals, in 1968 they made a series of significant reforms to House procedures, including the following three key changes.

The estimates were no longer considered by a committee of the whole of the House but were sent to standing committees. That was a good reform. It gave those expert committees the ability to scrutinize the spending of the departments that the minister is responsible for, i.e. the Fisheries minister in the fisheries committee or the Industry minister in the industry committee.

The second significant reform, according to Treasury Board, that was made in 1968 was that the opposition was given a total of 25 days when it could choose a topic of a debate. Those are colloquially called opposition days, when we get to propose a motion for the House to debate and move and, for the general part in this government, for the government to ignore the vote or, in some cases, vote against it, as they did recently on several opposition days. We were thankful that they voted to send China interference, which the government has been aware of for two years, I believe, yesterday, to the procedure and House committee. Thanks to some of these reforms, those things can happen.

The third thing was that most bills were referred to standing committees. I was talking with MP Blaikie the other day about bills going to standing committees, and talking about the time.... Again I'm going to give a story. There is a standing order that is still on the books today, little used, that committees could be freed up from the arduous work of dealing with legislation, which can throw off the important subject studies that standing committees do. For example, we now have three government bills before the industry committee, which has stopped, halted, right in the middle of the important study we were doing on a Bloc motion to have the electronics and recycling ecosystem studied by the industry committee to understand all types of things. That has been stopped because we now have three bills, Bill C-27 on privacy, Bill C-34, changes to the Investment Canada Act, which I'm sure all members here are very interested in, and Bill C-42, a bill to create, finally, a beneficial corporate ownership registry.

There is a standing order that still exists today that says you can refer bills to legislative committees. These are special committees that get set up for each bill. They exist for a bill, then disappear.

During the days when I was a young legislative assistant to a minister, that's where all bills went. They didn't go to standing committees, except for the budget. They didn't go to standing committees; they went to specially constituted legislative committees that would be set up, for example, to deal with Bill C-21, which changed the Firearms Act. It wouldn't go to security, SECU, as we call it. It would go to a special committee of MPs set up from all parties, and it would have its own budgets, its own clerks and its own travel budgets and then, when the bill was reported back to the House with or without amendments, that legislative committee would disappear.

For example, Mr. Chair, look at the biography of a former chair of this committee whom I knew well, Don Blenkarn, an irascible fellow from Mississauga who was elected and chaired this committee, I believe, for six years during the Mulroney government. He wasn't always a person who followed the government rules, I can tell you, much to the chagrin of then finance minister, Michael Wilson. When you look up his bio, you will see legislative committee after legislative committee after legislative committee listed by bill, because when a finance bill came out of second reading in the House, the legislative committee would set up, and Don Blenkarn would always be one who wanted to be on those bills to examine them.

While this reform in 1968 referred it to standing committees, I know personally that there were further reforms to the Standing Orders to allow for more flexibility. It is something we should use a little more today, those legislative committees, but, like I've said before, I've gone a little off topic from this, but I still think it's about how we hold ministers to account in Parliament.

There are different ways to do it under the Standing Orders, and some are effective, but the key part of it, whether it's a standing committee, a legislative committee, public accounts, the finance committee or two of my favourites, industry and fisheries, is that ministers come because it's a courtesy on both sides.

It's a courtesy to ask the minister to come and explain why this is such a great legislative initiative, but it's also generally polite—like when you get a dinner invitation to somebody's house—to go. I won't say to you, Mr. Chair, since I expect I will get an invitation to dinner with you sometime, “Well, I can only go for half an hour.” I know you want to talk to me about the insights I've provided the committee on ministerial accountability for more than that over dinner and maybe a few glasses of wine.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Oh, there is a public accounts meeting later today, so it's being requested that we actually hear just a little more, for the usage of those who have dual committee responsibilities, what the Treasury Board says the roles of ministers are with respect to the public accounts committee.

It has in the final paragraph on page 16, “The Standing Committee on Public Accounts”—otherwise more colloquially known as the public accounts committee—“scrutinizes all reports of the auditor general and The Public Accounts of Canada once they are tabled in the House of Commons.”

If viewers want to see what the agenda is for those committees or for this committee, they can go to Ourcommons.ca and click under “Committees”, pick out the committee they're interested in and see the agenda. If, for some reason, this committee's not being broadcast on CPAC, those who are watching this will know already, I guess, that they can go to ParlVU. They can watch anything that's going on online in Parliament. They just click on the committee. They can actually go back and view past things. They could go back and start to watch from the beginning, if they wanted to, my presentation on ministerial accountability and these important government documents.

It's being pointed out that these are in both official languages, because I do respect immensely my Bloc colleagues and want to make sure people know that they can get any of these presentations or minutes and can watch or view in both official languages. It's easy. There's a button to click at the bottom. You just choose between English and French. That's very important, because we are an officially bilingual country.

We only have one officially bilingual province, though: New Brunswick. Canadians have a right to ask for government services in the language of their choice.

This final paragraph continues about the public accounts committee, “The Committee helps ensure that public funds are spent for the purposes authorized by Parliament.” It doesn't say that the committee helps understand or oversee the monies spent by the Minister of Finance on her own, without anybody watching over her shoulder, except for, maybe, the chief of staff of the Prime Minister. It doesn't say that here in this Treasury Board document.

What it has is, “The Committee helps ensure that public funds are spent for the purposes authorized by Parliament.” Only Parliament can authorize spending, right? This is part of this process, this massive omnibus bill amending 51 acts. It's important, to get to an understanding of that act that we be able to ask the key questions, and we need to ask them to the minister responsible. It's a fairly basic thing.

It actually goes back to the basic establishment of the mother of all parliaments in Great Britain. For those of you who don't know, the reason the House of Commons is green is that the first House of Commons in Britain was held in a farmer's field. It wasn't held in the winter, so the grass was green. That's why that's our colour—to represent the commoners, the farmers, agriculture, the roots of our country, the common people, because the common people have common sense. That's what we should be following to bring it home.

The Treasury Board report continues to say that the public accounts committee does not assess the appropriateness of policies adopted by the government. It's actually for committees like this to examine the appropriateness of those issues. Public accounts' job is to ensure that the money that was allocated to change the symbol on the king's crown from a religious symbol to a snowflake—because apparently Canada is the only country with snow—has been spent correctly, and that it hasn't been spent on enforcement of rules regarding elvers—although, Lord knows, we need that since the RCMP is refusing to enforce the law in Nova Scotia around illegal poaching. Maybe some of that money could be diverted there—but, no, the public accounts would find that a misuse of public funds, because that is not what Parliament will be approving. If Parliament approves this bill, it will approve those specific changes.

It's funny though. Even though this bill deals with symbols around royalty, I was shocked to learn that the bill doesn't deal with the imagines on Canada's passport. The government decided on its own that we should remove the image of Terry Fox and replace it with a squirrel eating a nut. Apparently a squirrel eating a nut is more Canadian than Terry Fox.

That would be an interesting question to pose to the minister. Maybe the minister is thinking that she has to squirrel it away for a rainy day. I don't see any squirrelling away for a rainy day in this budget with $130 billion of debt projected to be added to our national debt, bringing it to almost $1.4 trillion, by the way, of which $1.1 trillion will have been added by the two Trudeaus. For those who don't know it, the current Prime Minister's father was also prime minister for a number of years and left our country in—oh, I've been asked which years, because we have some young people in the room.

Specifically, he was first elected in 1968 and then defeated—which was a glorious day—on February 23, 1979, if I am correct, but I will defer to my Beatles expert, who may know more specifically.

Unfortunately, nine months later, that government of the Right Honourable Joe Clark.... By the way, for those who don't know it, after Pierre Trudeau was defeated, he resigned as leader. He drove away from Parliament Hill in his rare Mercedes Gullwing car because he didn't have the limo anymore. That car, which the son now owns, is worth something around $30 million or $40 million. The car is actually worth more than the $14 million that apparently the Prime Minister is worth. The car is actually worth more than his other assets. That doesn't seem right, but he inherited a beautiful car, and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau left town with his tail between his legs in a very expensive, collectible and rare car.

In early 1980 a very colourful finance minister, who later in the Mulroney government went on to serve as justice minister and trade minister, someone by the name of John Crosbie, who was Joe Clark's finance minister in 1979, presented a budget, accountable to Parliament. That budget proposed the outrageous idea that in order the help pay off the debt and deficits that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau had built up—which was the reason he lost his finance minister, by the way, in 1975 when John Turner resigned over that—there would be a tax on gasoline of 18¢ a gallon. We hadn't converted to metric yet, but that would be 4.5¢ a litre. For those who don't know what a Canadian gallon is, it's not a U.S. gallon. They would have been pikers compared to this government and the carbon tax, which, before the end of the decade, is going to add 41¢ a litre to the cost of gas. Unfortunately we lost John Crosbie a couple of years ago, but John would blush at the thought of presenting a budget that imposed 41¢ per litre of tax because the result of John Crosbie's tax of 18¢ a gallon or 4.5¢ a litre was that the Liberals and the NDP got together, I believe with the Union Nationale from Quebec, to defeat the Crosbie budget and send us to an election.

You would think that, at the time since the Liberals didn't have a leader, they wouldn't have done such a thing and would have respected the fact that somebody was trying to clean up the mess they had caused, but apparently not, so the wily old Allan MacEachen from Nova Scotia got Pierre Trudeau back into the saddle to fight the 1980 election, where he ran around calling himself “The Gunslinger”. Can you imagine that? A Liberal Prime Minister called himself the gunslinger. Given what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-21, I find it hard to believe that they would be proud of the legacy of a Liberal prime minister who served ultimately from 1968 to 1979 and then from 1980 to 1984 called himself the gunslinger.

He would actually stand with his fingers pointed like guns in his belt loop when he was campaigning. The gunslinger. I guess he had a different view on firearms from the one the current government has.

If I could go on to the next sentence of the report, it's the last sentence on page 16—

Public Safety

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, combatting crime is a complex issue. Rather than offering solutions, the party opposite wants to come up with catchy slogans and obstruct the policies we are putting forward.

We need to be dealing with mental health. We are providing options when it comes to housing. We are very proud of Bill C-21 and the things that are being put in there to get a handgun freeze and additional penalties on organized crime. We are taking an overall approach to dealing with crime, and I am proud of what we are doing.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I also studied the budget from a security perspective. I realize that not enough is being done, as she said, to counter gun violence.

Yes, we are working on Bill C‑21. There are good things in there. Is this going to solve all the problems? Unfortunately not and it is certainly not going to solve the problem of illicit firearms trafficking.

For months, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing that more people work together and that we create a sort of squad of New York police officers, Akwesasne Mohawk police officers, police officers from the Sûreté du Québec, police officers from Ontario and Border Services officers. They also need to be given more resources.

When these people appear in committee, they tell us that guns are crossing the border and they do not have the resources to stop it. Does the member think that the government is putting money in the right place?

Firearms

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have 21 petitions calling on the government to repeal Bill C-21, the confiscation of private property act.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, again, we are seeing the NRA spokesperson making things up. It will be three years next month since we got rid of assault-style weapons in Canada. It is now illegal to use them, buy them or sell them. The Conservative Party of Canada wants to bring these assault rifles back, but we will not allow that to happen. That is why I am calling on everyone in the House to support Bill C‑21 when it comes back to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Thank you to all of our officials today. I know we had a long day. You've given us some excellent information. I appreciate your service.

I'll just mention to the committee that there is the subcommittee on Friday. The point of that is we want to get squared away in an abundance of ambition for what happens after Bill C-21.

Thank you all.

We are now adjourned.

[Talal Dakalbab]

If you'll allow me, I will start by answering the question.

First of all, the red flag provisions in Bill C-21 do not remove the responsibility of law enforcement and the police to do what they have to do, as prescribed right now in the Criminal Code of Canada for the red flags. It is an addition to further allow the victims' families or Canadians, when they feel there's a risk, to bring it to the attention of a judge for an assessment.

I would say that I was part of the first introduction of Bill C-21 by Minister Blair. I was part of the second one, and I had discussions with stakeholders. The second bill added some provisions to ensure privacy and to ensure in camera hearings, in response to criticism in Bill C-21's first time around.

That does not remove the fact that there is work to be done. That is the reason some of the funding that is provided to law enforcement in provinces and territories is to work with law enforcement and for their time to react or to take it seriously when they get these complaints.

I want to clarify that what I'm saying is that this bill adds support, but it's not the only thing that is required. There is more to be done through training for law enforcement and clarity on their roles and responsibilities.

I'm happy to turn it over to my colleague, Deputy Commissioner Larkin, if he wants to add anything.

[Talal Dakalbab]

I believe I've testified in this committee in the past that Bill C-21 not only addresses crimes but also addresses gender-based violence and mental health issues. It is important to bear in mind from my perspective as a policy wonk, if you wish, that the bill is really a step among many other pillars that are important.

Quite frankly, I do want to refer a bit to the Mass Casualty Commission's report. It asks us to look at what community safety is in Canada, not only in the one pillar but as a whole, and I do believe that Bill C-21 is one of the steps, but not the full spectrum.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Okay.

Again, if I demonstrate any ill will towards Bill C-21, it's not directed towards you personally, just so you know.

I know that we've had many people here talk about the impacts of Bill C-21, or the lack of impacts of Bill C-21. Did you or anyone on this committee provide the minister or Public Safety Canada with any documentation or evidence that Bill C-21, as proposed, was actually going to make a positive difference on public safety in this country? Was there any evidence to support it?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here.

For Mr. Larkin, first of all, Bryan, thank you for your many years of service. I appreciate your leadership on the CPA.

Mr. Anson, thank you for your military service. It's greatly appreciated.

For all on the committee, did any one of you have a hand in the development of this Bill C-21, or was that from the minister and his department specifically?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank everyone for being here today. We're pleased to welcome you.

As you know, we, the members of Parliament, are lucky to be able to rely on the assistance of legislative analysts and advisors who guide us on the drafting of our amendments. When we get an idea, they often help us put it on paper in appropriate legislative language. They even give us recommendations or short notes saying that it's a good idea, or that it's doable, but that it might extend beyond the scope of the bill given that there is no clause in the current bill that addresses that issue, for example. This sometimes limits what we can do.

I know that the government can also rely on the Department of Justice for advice; in fact, I believe that various departments, including Justice, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, consulted one another on the drafting or tabling of amendments G‑4 and G‑46.

My question is for you, Mr. Dakalbab.

Did people at the Department of Justice ever tell you that amendments G‑4 and G‑46 went beyond the scope of Bill C‑21 and that another parliamentary measure would have to be introduced for procedural compliance? A parliamentary measure might mean something like a motion moved by the government to expand the scope of the bill.

Did you receive a comment of this kind from the Department of Justice?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Over the last number of years, we have invested close to a billion dollars to support law enforcement through the anti-guns and gangs fund and through our investments into the Canada Border Services Agency.

What does this mean in simple language? This means more resources on the ground. It means more personnel. It means state-of-the-art technology. It means making sure that we're stopping the illegal flow of guns into our country. You heard me cite the numbers: There were 1,100 illegal firearms seized in 2022.

There have been great strides, but the fact is that we have to do more. Supporting law enforcement is one pillar, but we also need to do the prevention work, as I said in my response to Mr. Chiang. Prevention is a pillar that often gets overlooked and does not get the same oxygen and coverage as, let's say, legislation like Bill C-21, but it is a game-changer. It is a game-changing pillar.

What I would say to you is that beyond the scope of this portfolio in Public Safety, the work that our government is doing through the creation of a national housing strategy—providing access to Canadians who are trying to get into their first home by providing more supports for mental health, which my colleague Minister Bennett is leading and shepherding in historic ways—is part of the way in which we can prevent crime. This is because it gets right to those social determinants and those barriers that stand in the way of people who are at risk achieving their full potential and giving back.

I strongly encourage the members of this committee and all parliamentarians, in their study of how we can solve the very difficult problem of gun crime, to also give equal focus and emphasis to addressing prevention. We are doing that, both in my portfolio at Public Safety and equally right across government.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We have, as I said at the outset of my last response to you, engaged directly with NIOs—national indigenous organizations—as well as directly with other communities and rights holders. The character of those conversations has been, I think, very focused and constructive in relation to the questions that have been raised vis-à-vis Bill C-21 and more specifically around some of the amendments that were originally introduced.

I would say that as a matter of ensuring that the lived experiences of first nations are reflected in this bill in the practical sense—when it comes to food security, when it comes to self-protection, when it comes to the preservation of traditions that are very much rooted in indigenous language, culture and history—I can assure you that those conversations have been meaningful. Our commitment is that this bill will in no way derogate from indigenous rights as they are captured under the charter or anywhere else. That, to me, is an important principle.

By the way, it is not just with regard to Bill C-21. When we think about the work that we are doing under the United Nations Declaration Act and the work that my colleague Minister Lametti is undertaking in the implementation of that act, we know that it is very important that we do this work in a way that is respectful of indigenous peoples.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think that Ms. Michaud has identified two options, one of which already exists in the current bill. There is a provision according to which one can “create a new offence for altering a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity”. This useful provision in Bill C‑21 directly answers your question.

But the question indeed remains: what can we as the federal government do about it? We are currently studying it. I think that it might also be possible in the short term to reach other decisions about the issue of large-capacity magazines.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Shipley, we have an opportunity now to take a good bill and make it even stronger.

I take umbrage at some of the comments that were not made on the record by your colleague Mr. Motz. It is very clear. The Conservatives have said repeatedly that they would repeal legislation that this government has put into place, including Bill C-71 and Bill C-21 when, hopefully, it passes and becomes law. The consequence of that is we will have weaker, not stronger, legislation when it comes to keeping assault-style firearms off our streets and out of our communities.

Mr. Chair, that is why the Mass Casualty Commission has called on this government to make sure that we take those next concrete steps to keep those guns that were designed for a battlefield out of our communities.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

No, that's not. I'm the last one to mention social media.

Do you take responsibility for the disaster Bill C-21 has been?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you. I hope I'll have a bit more time.

Thank you, Minister. I have one more question for you, sir.

You mentioned the consultations you were doing, and I'll take you at your word for that. In February, though, multiple sources spoke to the Toronto Star about your approach to Bill C-21, which related that:

As the amendments landed, Mendicino was testifying before the public order inquiry commission, and the usual normal briefings and communications plans that would have been attached to such a legislative move fell by the wayside

Minister, you are the minister. You're the top guy of the social...of safety here.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today with us.

I liked that you said in your opening remarks that we're going to have some constructive dialogue today, so let's have some right now and lay it all out on the table.

We're not going to talk about the technical side today. Today we're going to try to figure out where we are, how we got here and where we're going tomorrow.

Minister, you stood up in the House multiple times and stated that opposition parties that were concerned with your poorly planned amendments to Bill C-21 were spreading misinformation. However, on February 3, when you withdrew your amendments, your own government House leader stated that “there were gaps and problems in the amendments. That's why we've retracted them.”

Could you now please admit that the genuine concerns Canadians had about these amendments were not baseless misinformation?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Julian.

I think you've made a very good point, which is that it's the firearms manufacturers' responsibility.

First of all, a way has to be found to involve the manufacturers in firearms regulatory and classification efforts, including firearms classified as assault weapons.

I think the way we can do this, Mr. Julian, is by engaging directly with manufacturers to make sure they understand that there is a responsibility to submit firearms for classification. By doing that, we can move away from the obligation being on not only law enforcement but on gun owners themselves. I think there is an opportunity to look at an amendment that will strengthen Bill C-21 so that manufacturers are required to work with law enforcement in the classification of firearms, including on the important point of those firearms that may fall under a definition of a firearm prohibited as an assault-style firearm.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming today.

As Ms. Michaud just said, your presence and the discussions we've had are important, because we're about to resume the clause‑by‑clause study of Bill C‑21 and we don't want a second failure. The first version of the definition had clearly failed before Christmas. Fortunately, it was withdrawn.

Now the issue of manufacturers is one of the important things you mentioned in your presentation. As you very well know, some organizations like PolySeSouvient identified a number loopholes for manufacturers. We can identify military-style assault weapons, but there's no logical compulsory process for manufacturers of new models. Some new models might be made specifically with a view to circumventing the law. Manufacturers therefore have a major responsibility.

Could you talk to us about the current process and about what could be tightened up to eliminate these loopholes?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Minister, at the beginning of your address, you described Bill C‑21 to reform firearms laws as extremely sound.

The current bill makes no mention of illegal arms trafficking, exempts certain people from the handgun freeze, and fails to respond to demands from several women's groups that criticize the red flag measure. There is also still no amendment that would prohibit assault weapons.

Would you agree with me that your reform may not be quite that strong?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming.

To be honest, I'm rather disappointed. I expected you to announce that you were going to present new amendments for the resumption of the clause‑by‑clause study of Bill C‑21. We've welcomed you today in connection with a study of the effects of the withdrawal of amendments G‑4 and G‑46. I understand that you have resumed work on this and that you have consulted hunters and indigenous communities, among others, which is something you should have done before presenting the amendments. I would have liked to hear what you had to say on the solutions you came up with for finally drawing a clear distinction between weapons used in a military context and those used reasonably for hunting.

You are the last witness we will be receiving, before we resume a clause‑by‑clause study shortly, and I understand that we will still not be receiving any new amendments that would prohibit assault weapons, as you had promised.

Can you confirm otherwise today, to the effect that when we resume the clause‑by‑clause study, the amendments pertaining to the assault weapons ban will have been tabled by your government?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you.

In looking at the bill, we don't see a lot in there, and yet this has been holding up the good work of this committee for quite some time. As you know, there are about four or five inches' worth of amendments on Bill C-21 that we still have to do, as well as clause-by-clause study. There are only two months left, Minister, and you've made us wait six weeks. You also have two other bills in the chamber waiting to come to this committee.

That's not to mention that there has been a 32% increase in violent crime, as you are well aware, since your government took office seven years ago. Of that crime, less than half of one percentage point is committed by long guns, and yet your government chose to divide Canadians with the amendments that you've recently withdrawn.

It's really not clear to me what Bill C-21 is going to accomplish. Reasonably, I think we can understand if you would withdraw this bill. I'm just wondering, to conclude, if that's part of your plan, Minister.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I would hope that would be the case, certainly, given how many lives are being taken and given how important it is that we tackle gun smuggling. I would agree with the statement you made; however, the information that your office has provided to my office is that since the Liberals formed government in 2015, not one person has been awarded the current 10-year maximum sentence. It is frustrating to see you talk on national television, here today and in question period to our questions about how you're getting tough on gun traffickers and increasing the maximum to 14 years when the current sentence of 10 years has never been used since your Prime Minister formed government a few years ago.

I just feel that it's really a non-starter. It's really not going to do a lot to combat this issue, unfortunately. That part of Bill C-21 isn't going to make that much of an impact, given that the maximum 10-year sentence has never been used since the Liberals formed government a few years ago.

I want to move on to the red flag provisions.

To be honest, this is an area that I was looking forward to. As you'll recall, I asked that this be split from the bill so that we can take the politics out of it and look to support the red flag provisions. You were in the chamber at that time. You did not allow me to split that out of there.

We found in our testimony that the Canadian Bar Association; the National Association of Women and the Law, which was a Liberal witness; domestic violence groups from Quebec; and also three chiefs and vice-chiefs we invited to committee did not want those red flag laws passed in this bill. They did not support them. They're the very groups that I would have imagined would have supported them, because they were supposed to be for vulnerable groups and women in domestic violence situations. That's why I was interested in supporting them off the bat, yet we've heard first-hand that they're no good.

In fact, the quotes were quite damning. The women's group said that it would prohibit extremely quick action that is essential to preventing femicide and is likely to be risky and impractical for women whose safety is at risk. It also said that it would do more harm than good for women impacted by this. The indigenous groups mentioned that racism could play a factor and that the red flag laws could be abused. If someone just doesn't like you in a first nation, they can have your guns apprehended.

That is the impression that your red flag laws in this bill have given the public: They don't seem to be any good. It's frustrating, because there's not a lot in this bill that we can really talk about. You already passed the handgun ban through regulation in the fall. That major “keystone”, as you called it, in Bill C-21 has already been accomplished by your government.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and staff, for being with us today on this important matter.

Minister, it has been a while that we have been waiting for you to come to this committee for these consultations. It's six weeks since we wrapped up our consultations.

I know that when you first introduced this bill almost a year ago, you took the position that you wanted this bill passed as quickly as possible, and then, when it came to committee in the late fall, Liberal members on this committee were insistent that we pass this bill within a week. Now this is months later, and you have made us wait six weeks for you to come here.

I do appreciate that you're here now to answer our questions.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that a cornerstone of your legislation in Bill C-21 is to combat gun traffickers, which is something I deeply support. I think that law enforcement also supports that. As you know, the Toronto Police Service has said that almost nine out of 10 guns used in crimes in Toronto are smuggled from the United States. Collectively, police have told us and you that this is a primary focus, and should be, for fighting gun violence in this country.

I appreciate that Bill C-21, based on your remarks, is attempting to do that. I know you have talked on national television about how this bill will strengthen—your words—penalties for gun traffickers from their 10-year maximum sentence to 14 years.

How common is it now to sentence someone to 10 years, the current maximum? How common is that now?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to return to this committee to discuss Bill C-21 and the broader actions the government is taking to reduce gun violence.

This bill basically aims at keeping Canadians safe. It flows from the promise we made to Canadians to combat violence and crimes committed with firearms by removing weapons designed for battlefields from our streets.

Bill C-21, Mr. Chair, is the strongest gun reform legislation this country has seen in a generation. It implements a national freeze on handguns, the number one type of gun used in homicides. It addresses the alarming role of firearms in domestic violence through our red and yellow flag laws and it will raise maximum sentences against gun traffickers from 10 years to 14 years.

We're committed to getting this right and getting this legislation passed for all Canadians. To do that, we need to engage people, and that is exactly what we have been doing.

We've met hunters, firearms experts, indigenous peoples, and Canadians in rural and northern regions, to hear what they have to say and in order to get a better understanding of the role firearms play in the everyday lives of many people.

I've heard from indigenous communities that hunt to feed their families, to protect themselves and to preserve their traditions. I've met with gun owners from right across the country, and most recently in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Yukon and Northwest Territories, where hunting is not only recreational but also something that is passed on from one generation to the next.

Of course, Mr. Chair, I have the sober responsibility of grieving with family members and communities who have been devastated by gun violence. I have consoled families in Nova Scotia, Quebec City, Montreal, Surrey and in my own hometown of Toronto. I have attended the funerals of 10 police officers. We owe it to them. Every member of this committee, every member of Parliament and every parliamentarian owes it to them to keep going.

We just marked the third anniversary of the shooting tragedy in Portapique and Truro, Nova Scotia. I joined the Prime Minister to receive the final report of the Mass Casualty Commission and to grieve with the families.

Mr. Chair, one of the recommendations to emerge from the final report called on the government to strengthen the national ban on assault-style firearms, which we put into place in 2020. It's not just the Mass Casualty Commission; it's law enforcement, survivors and victims, as well as the vast majority of Canadians, who support taking action against a type of firearm that, let's be clear, was designed to inflict the greatest number of fatalities possible in the shortest period of time.

We need to continue this work by implementing our comprehensive plan to prevent further tragedies. An intelligent policy is only one part of our comprehensive plan to protect Canadians against crimes committed with firearms. Our plan rests on three pillars.

Our plan includes strong borders to stop the flow of illegal guns, backed by a $450-million investment into border security in the last two years alone. Last year, the CBSA and RCMP seized a record number of illegal firearms at the border, but we need to continue that progress.

Another part of our plan is strong prevention through our investments in stopping crime and violence before it starts. This begins with our $250-million building safer communities fund, a program that is designed to help set up success for young people who are at greatest risk by advancing their educations and their careers so they can make positive contributions to our communities.

Initiatives like 902 Man Up in Halifax, which I have had the pleasure of visiting with, are making an incredible difference, and they are just one of the many organizations right across the country that are benefiting from this initiative.

Our national crime prevention strategy and the gun and gang violence action fund are two more examples of how we are stopping gun crime before it starts.

Finally, Mr. Chair, there are the strong gun laws and the keystone legislation that are before you right now in the form of Bill C-21.

It's purpose is to prevent another tragedy like those at the École polytechnique, Dawson College, Portapique and Truro. Canadians firmly support our prohibition on assault-style firearms, and the historic tabling of Bill C‑21.

We bring solutions, not slogans, to make sure that all Canadians can feel safe at home.

Striking the right balance to meet the goals I have outlined today while working with this Parliament is something that we remain committed to doing. Together we now have both an opportunity and a responsibility to not only pass this bill in its current form but to strengthen it.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to supporting amendments that will address the assault-style rifle ban, as the Mass Casualty Commission's final report called on us to do, along with other priorities that deal with ghost guns and, indeed, the responsibilities of manufacturers to play their role in keeping our communities safe.

Mr. Chair, in conclusion, Canadians are counting on us to do this work responsibly, based on facts, not fear, and I hope all of my colleagues will contribute to a constructive dialogue today

I now look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 62 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee resumed its study of the effects of the withdrawn amendments, G-4 and G-46, to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with regard to firearms.

We welcome today, in person, the Minister of Public Safety and high officials from various departments and agencies.

First, we have the Honourable Marco Mendicino, Minister of Public Safety.

Welcome, Minister. Thank you for coming.

We have, from the Canada Border Services Agency, Mr. Daniel Anson, director general, intelligence and investigations. From the Department of Justice is Mr. Matthew Taylor, general counsel and director, criminal law policy division. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is Mr. Talal Dakalbab, senior assistant deputy minister, crime prevention branch. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Mr. Bryan Larkin, deputy commissioner, specialized policing services, and Ms. Kellie Paquette, director general, Canadian firearms program.

Thank you all for joining us today.

I'll note that the minister will be with us for the first hour and that the remaining officials will stay for the second hour as well.

Welcome to everyone.

I now invite the minister to make an opening statement.

Please go ahead, sir.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.

The first is to ensure that Bill C-21 does not get passed. It was the RCMP incompetence that led to punishing farmers and hunters.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to table three petitions on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

The first petition calls upon the government to repeal Bill C-21. Hunting has a long-standing history in Canada for both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, and needlessly revoking citizens' firearms erases and discounts our history and traditions.

Online Streaming Act

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have already seen examples of an overreach with this particular government on many aspects. I talked about Bill C-21 during my speech. My colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap highlighted many of the egregious events of the government in taking down or limiting the rights and freedoms of Canadians. I think that is a concern and certainly a concern that I have heard from people as well.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, there has not been any other issue that I have been seized with other than Bill C-21, which is the firearms legislation, more than this piece of legislation.

I have heard from more people who are opposed to this piece of legislation, because of the impact it would have on user-generated content. I have listened to the voices of those people I represent. I have heard, at committee, the testimony of people. I read many of their comments about their concern about this piece of legislation. The Senate has a concern. The only sides that are not concerned about this are the Liberal and NDP side, and to some degree the Bloc. It is understandable why the Bloc is in support of this piece of legislation, but the NDP and the Liberals are not doing what they need to do, and that is to listen to those people who have expressed concerns.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

Democracy does, indeed, die at night. We are sitting here dealing with amendments from the Senate on a deeply flawed and deeply controversial piece of legislation. I have not been in the House all day, but for the last couple of hours. I have heard the debate and the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a profoundly convincing argument that he made as to why this piece of legislation should not be passed.

However, it is not just the words of the Leader of the Opposition that tell us why this piece of legislation needs to be, at a minimum, overhauled or, better yet, halted at this time. The concerns of Canadians, the concerns of digital content creators, those who understand this space, those who have looked at this piece of legislation, those who have taken the time to appear before committee to express their views and all of their concerns, including the Senate amendments, to deal with one part of this deeply flawed piece of legislation are being ignored by the government, which is certainly being aided and abetted by other opposition parties.

What I thought I would do tonight is take a different tack from where this debate has gone today. There have been, like I said, hundreds of thousands of voices. There is not one issue, perhaps other than Bill C-21, the firearms legislation that I heard more about from my constituents than Bill C-11. Like the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, I am an elected member of this place, I am the voice of the people who I represent in Barrie—Innisfil and I am going to share their voices this evening. I am going to share the voices of other eminent Canadians who have expressed a concern about this piece of legislation.

I received an email from Kim, who said, “Dear Mr. Brassard, The passing of Bill C-11 will be a sad moment in Canadian history. Please consider making sure this bill does not get passed. This kind of censorship should not come from our government or any free society.” Violet said, “Dear Sir: I want the brakes put on this Bill now! I am not a fan of this ridiculous Bill.”

Rose said, “This bill is an overreach. It needs to be scrapped. Anyone who has been following this bill understands that we do not need the government to tell us what we can read/see [online].” Peter said, “Hello John, Regarding the above, my opinion is Bill C-11 should be scrapped and the [...] government keep their hand off of our social media. I hope you are [doing your] best to keep this Bill from being passed. Hopefully the Liberals will be ousted in the next election.”

John and Corrine from Barrie said, “Trust all is going well with you and your family. We ask that you vote 'no' to Bill C-11. This will hurt and restrict healthy free speech and debate which is the democracy our nation is founded on. This is a great concern to us. As our constitutional freedoms and rights are restricted, this opens doors to tyranny and dictatorship which is dangerous to every level of our nation.”

Another says, “Good afternoon Mr Honourable Brassard, I know you're busy so I'll be brief.” This is from Brent in Barrie. “I'm very much against Bill C-11. I don't want an unelected government official/body determining what my family can watch. Margaret Atwood is against it. The previous CRTC commissioner is against it. This bill will stifle freedom of speech and shut down contrary views under the threat of 'misinformation and/or disinformation'. Please fight for our freedom of speech.”

We have certainly heard in the arguments from the opposition, the NDP and others about this being an issue of disinformation. In fact, I would suggest the ones spreading the disinformation are those on the government side.

The other person who has been directly involved in this entire debate has been Michael Geist, who is a law professor at Ottawa University. Interestingly, I was going through some his posts earlier today and he has been watching the debate intently in this House of Commons. He made a post earlier that said, “Bill C-11 is not China, Russia or Nazi Germany. As I’ve stated many times, it does not limit the ability....[of] implications for freedom of expression but it does [not] turn Canada into China.”

Firearms

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition from members of my community in Kelowna—Lake Country and the surrounding area. To summarize, the petitioners are calling on the government to stop targeting law-abiding hunters, sports shooters and farmers with gun legislation; to revise Bill C-21 so that it would effectively address the illegal use of firearms by criminals, while respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens; and last, to focus law-enforcement resources on gangs, drug traffickers, illegal gun traffickers and those who purchase firearms illegally.

Public Safety

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, any kind of spike in violence, like the one on the TTC, is concerning to all of us. That is why we work with municipalities, like the City of Toronto and the City of Vancouver, to invest in the root causes of crime. That is why we are making investments in mental health.

We know that we need to be investing in the root causes, but we cannot ignore the impact that guns have on crime. That is why we will proudly take action, as we are with Bill C-21.

Justice

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, amidst all this tragedy, it is interesting to see the lengths to which the Conservative leader will go to avoid talking about his desire to weaken gun control in this country and bring assault weapons back into the communities where they were banned over the past couple of years by the government.

We have put a freeze on handguns in the market across the country. We are strengthening gun control, and every step of the way, the Conservative Party stands against it.

That is why I am asking Conservatives, with their concerns about public safety right now: Will they step up and accelerate the passage of Bill C-21 when it comes back to the House for third reading?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work on bail reform, including working with the provinces to ensure that we have a fair, responsible system that keeps Canadians safe right across the country.

If the member opposite were really serious about moving forward on keeping communities safe, he would back our upcoming Bill C-21 at third reading to make sure that we are keeping assault weapons out of the hands of people across the country, strengthening gun control to freeze handguns and continuing to move forward.

Instead of being in the pockets of the NRA, we are focused on Canadians.

Online Streaming Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I caught your eye so I can speak to this piece of legislation. I know I started speaking on it, but I guess the government made a mistake in its original motion. I was so keen to make sure I was here to add my voice and the voices of my constituents on this.

Years ago, when this bill was known as Bill C-10, which then got converted to Bill C-11, I remember standing at a Calgary Stampede pancake breakfast in my riding in the community of Auburn Bay. The hosts served two to three thousand people that day. I stood at the front of the line, and before people got their pancakes, they had to interact with me.

I had a great many constituents tell me the number one issue they wanted to talk to me about was Bill C-11. I was floored that some of them knew the number for a piece of legislation. A lot of young people wanted to talk about it. What they knew was that Bill C-11 was coming through and would have an impact on free speech, and they did not like it. I asked them what they knew, and we had an exchange about it.

The majority of emails I get are in opposition to Bill C-11 and also in opposition to Bill C-21. I have had a handful, which I could literally count on one hand, of people who have had positive things to say about Bill C-11.

People are extremely upset with the government over the Senate amendments and which of the amendments it has chosen to proceed with and which it has not. One of the Senate amendments it rejected would have protected user-uploaded content.

As we know, with most user-uploaded content, there is a possibility for someone to make revenue from it when they have a channel. All of it is captured by these amendments that the government would be accepting in Bill C-11. Bill C-11 is still a deeply flawed piece of legislation.

Before I continue, I want to say that I am splitting my time with the member for Lakeland, who I am sure will do a terrific job speaking on behalf of her constituents as well.

I want to go through the legislation, specifically section 7, which I have the most concerns with.

In my home, my kids go on YouTube and streaming services exclusively. We do not have cable. There is no over-the-air TV like back in my day. When I say “back in my day”, I still remember when there were black and white channels.

In Communist Poland, there were only two channels we could get. They were both in black and white. The joke always was that the regime had set up a second channel to prove to people the first one was not that bad. I do not remember it, but the first time I got to watch TV in colour was when I came to Canada in 1985. It was a nice thing to see that colour TV was something we could get.

My kids do not have that experience at all. They go onto YouTube and I go onto YouTube as well. I am going to mention two particular channels I love, because they are by Canadian content creators who would be impacted by Bill C-11.

The first one is an Ontario channel called TheStraightPipes. It is two guys from Ontario who review cars. They just get vehicles and review them. They would have to go to the CRTC to get a licence that says the videos they post are Canadian content.

They are from Canada. They are Canadian content creators. Even when they travel to America, I still think of their videos as Canadian content. Would they be eligible for a licence for their Canadian and international audience to be able to look at their videos if they go to America and do them?

The second one I want to mention is my favourite, and I mentioned it earlier in the previous stage of debate on Bill C-11 It is Leroy and Leroy. If people are not on Instagram checking out these guys from Saskatchewan, they are missing out.

Leroy and Leroy is the funniest comedy channel about funny street signs all over Canada. I will always remember the one video they uploaded of a “no parking” sign on a straight road somewhere in Saskatchewan. I know it is really difficult to figure out one straight road from another in Saskatchewan. It is a rural road, there is a “no parking” sign and there is just nothing there that someone would be concerned about vehicles blocking.

I wonder whether they would have to keep reapplying to the CRTC as Canadian content creators. Are they Canadian enough? When they travel outside of Canada to do their comedy routine, would they be Canadian enough?

I have a Yiddish proverb. I always have a Yiddish proverb. I am going to butcher the pronunciation of it.

[Member spoke in Yiddish]

[English]

It means, “Truth has all the finest qualities, but it is shy.” I am glad we are having this debate this evening, because it is an opportunity for the shyness to come out and the truth to come out.

Many members on the opposite side do not like the fact that we call this a censorship bill. We say the CRTC is going to be able to control what people see and hear online, but that is what many of the witnesses have been saying.

Countless witnesses, professors and academics, people who have specialized in writing, including a constitutional lawyer who used to work for our justice department, have expressed concern over the content of the bill and how the bill is written. When there is a disagreement between experts and the common, everyday people who write to my inbox telling me they are upset with the contents of the bill, I am going to trust my constituents, the real experts when it comes to legislation before the House. They are the ones I represent here. They are the ones who are going to have to live with the decisions we are making and the types of legislation we are going to pass.

I am very concerned with section 7. It reads, “For greater certainty, an order may be made under subsection (1) with respect to orders made under subsection 9.1(1) or 11.1(2) or regulations made under subsection 10(1) or 11.1(1).”

We write these laws in this manner. I am not burdened with a legal education, thankfully, but I did go back to the Broadcasting Act to see under which sections the government would be able to direct things. This one would allow cabinet to issue, under the heading “Policy directions”, any of the objectives of the broadcasting policies set out in a different subsection, or any of the objectives of the regulatory policies set out in a different section. It starts by saying, “the Governor in Council may...issue to the Commission directions of general application on broad policy matters with respect to”, and then it goes into detail.

The next section I will talk about is licencing. Everything to do with licencing would be impacted as well, because the government would be able to direct the CRTC through a policy directive and tell it what to do. That is all in section 7. It goes on to talk about regulations generally, and we find that in many pieces of legislation.

For those constituents who are perhaps watching this and will use this as an explanation when I go through this, it goes from literally 10(1) all the way down from (a) to (k), and the government covers everything down to what respects the audit or examination of the records of licencees.

What does that mean? Is it that, if Leroy and Leroy gets a licence with the CRTC to prove its creators create Canadian content, the creators can be audited, such as with respect to how many videos they did in Canada versus not in Canada? If TheStraightPipes brings in an American vehicle, or a vehicle perhaps manufactured elsewhere, are the creators going to be audited on that?

The bill talks about distribution, mediation rules and respecting the carriage of any foreign or other programming services by distribution undertakings. What happens if TheStraightPipes decides to do a joint episode with an American channel? Does it need a special licence, a different licence, and have to pay a fee? Is it Canadian content enough?

All these broadcasting rules are being brought into the age of YouTube, and they do not really apply here where the cost of production is so low and so close to people. However, in the bill, there are things about advertising, Canadian programming and what constitutes Canadian programming, which is where this Canadian content comes in.

Again, there are a schedule of fees, performing of the licence and the undertakings, which are all being covered, and it starts with the policy directives that can be set by the Government of Canada. A lot of different groups have expressed concerns about it. Like I said, it is probably the number one issue emailed to me or in the phone calls I get in the office.

I talked about the Calgary Stampede pancake breakfast outside the Auburn Bay A&W, which was hosting it. The gentleman who runs it, Balwant, is a great community activist. He is always helping different charitable groups and supporting them.

There are a lot of groups and individuals who think this is bad legislation: Digital First Canada; OpenMedia; J.J. McCullough, who is an independent journalist but has his own YouTube channel as well; Justin Tomchuk, who is an independent filmmaker; and the Digital Media Association. The list goes on and on.

This piece of legislation is bad. It is about censorship, or it would give the opportunity for it, and if the government really meant for it not to be not to be known by that, it would have abandoned this piece of legislation. It would have gone back to the drafting process and drafted a better bill.

This entire situation could have been avoided. Motions were tabled that actually did not do what they were supposed to do, and then the government came back and tabled a different motion because it is just trying to ram the bill through the process, and that has not worked out for the government. I think there are way more Canadians who know about Bill C-11 and about the CRTC than ever before, and the vast majority of them in my riding are opposed to Bill C-11.

I am going to vote against Bill C-11. I will continue to advocate against it, because that is what my constituents want me to do. Hopefully, through this intervention here in the House of Commons, I have been able to demonstrate that the legislation, particularly section 7, and its amendments to the Broadcasting Act are completely on the wrong track. The government needs to kill Bill C-11.

Telecommunications Act

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and join the debate this morning in the House of Commons. I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Bill C-26 is a bill that addresses an important and growing topic. Cybersecurity is very important, very timely. I am glad that, in calling this bill today, the government sees this as a priority. I struggle with trying to figure out the priorities of the government from time to time. There were other bills it had declared as absolute must-pass bills before Christmas that it is not calling. However, it is good to be talking about this instead of Bill C-21, Bill C-11 or some of the other bills that the Liberals have lots of problems with on their own benches.

Cybersecurity is something that affects all Canadians. It is, no doubt, an exceptionally important issue that the government needs to address. Cybersecurity, as the previous speaker said, is national security. It is critical to the safety and security of all of our infrastructure. It underpins every aspect of our lives. We have seen how infrastructure can be vulnerable to cyber-attacks. Throughout the world, we have seen how energy infrastructure is vulnerable, like cyber-attacks that affect the ability to operate pipelines. We have seen how cyber-attacks can jeopardize the functioning of an electrical grid.

At the local level, we have experienced how weather events that bring down power infrastructure can devastate a community and can actually endanger people's health and safety. One can only imagine what a nationwide or pervasive cyber-attack that managed to cripple a national electrical grid would do to people's ability to live their lives in safety and comfort.

Cyberwarfare is emerging as a critical component of every country's national defence system, both offensively and defensively. The battlefield success of any military force has always depended on communication. We know now just how dependent military forces are on the security of their cyber-communication. We see this unfolding in Ukraine, resulting from the horrific, criminal invasion of that country by Putin. We see the vital role that communication plays with respect to the ability of a country to defend itself from a foreign adversary, in terms of cybersecurity.

I might point out that there is a study on this going on at the national defence committee. We have heard expert testimony about how important cybersecurity is to the Canadian Armed Forces. We look forward to getting that report eventually put together and tabled, with recommendations to the government here in the House of Commons in Canada.

We know that critical sectors of the Canadian economy and our public services are highly vulnerable to cyber-attack. Organized crime and foreign governments do target information contained within health care systems and within our financial system. The potential for a ransom attack, large and small, is a threat to Canadians. Imagine a hostile regime or a criminal enterprise hacking a public health care system and holding an entire province or an entire country hostage with the threat to destroy or leak or hopelessly corrupt the health data of millions of citizens. Sadly, criminal organizations and hostile governments seek to do this and are busy creating the technology to enable them to do exactly this.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conducted three different studies while I was chair of that committee that were tied to cybersecurity in various ways. We talked about and learned about the important ways in which cybersecurity and privacy protection intersect and sometimes conflict. We saw how this government contracted with the company Clearview AI, a company whose business is to scrape billions of images from the Internet, identify these images and sell the identified images back to governments and, in the case of Canada, to the RCMP.

We heard chilling testimony at that committee about the capabilities of sophisticated investigative tools, spyware, used by hostile regimes and by organized crime but also by our own government, which used sophisticated investigative tools to access Canadians' cellphones without their knowledge or consent. In Canada, this was limited. It was surprising to learn that this happened, but it happened under judicial warrant and in limited situations by the RCMP. However, the RCMP did not notify or consult the Privacy Commissioner, which is required under Treasury Board rules. This conflict between protecting Canadians by enforcing our laws and protecting Canadians' privacy is difficult for governments, and when government institutions like the RCMP disregard Treasury Board edicts or ignore the Privacy Commissioner or the Privacy Act, especially when they set aside or ignore a ruling from the Privacy Commissioner, it is quite concerning.

This bill is important. It is worthy of support, unlike the government's somewhat related bill, Bill C-27, the so-called digital charter. However, this bill, make no mistake, has significant new powers for the government. It amends the Telecommunications Act to give extraordinary powers to the minister over industry. It is part of a pattern we are seeing with this government, where it introduces bills that grant significant powers to the minister and to the bureaucrats who will ultimately create regulations.

Parliament is really not going to see this fleshed out unless there is significant work done at committee to improve transparency around this bill and to add more clarity around what this bill would actually do and how these powers will be granted. There have been many concerns raised in the business community about how this bill may chase investment, jobs and capital from Canada. The prospect of extraordinary fines, without this bill being fleshed out very well, creates enormous liability for companies, which may choose not to invest in Canada, not fully understanding the ramifications of this bill.

There is always the capture. We have seen this time and time again with the government. It seems to write up a bill for maybe three or four big companies or industries, only a small number of players in Canada, and yet the bill will capture other enterprises, small businesses that do not have armies of lobbyists to engage the government and get regulations that will give them loopholes, or lawyers to litigate a conflict that may arise as a result of it. I am always concerned about the small businesses and the way they may be captured, either deliberately or not, by a bill like this.

I will conclude by saying that I support the objective. I agree with the concern that the bill tries to address. I am very concerned about a number of areas that are ambiguous within the bill. I hope that it is studied vigorously at committee and that strong recommendations are brought back from committee and incorporated into whatever the bill might finally look like when it comes back for third reading.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is really important tonight of all nights that we discuss this issue. In a world of disinformation and political interference from foreign actors, democracy is in a fragile condition these days. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to reassure the public and give them reason to believe that the public service has integrity. This is the reason that New Democrats came forward tonight to bring this motion, and we can see how excited the Conservatives are that, once again, they are able to respond to the NDP's lead on this. This is why, on a number of issues, we have used our position in Parliament not to burn the House to the ground but to try and find solutions.

When the Liberals overreached on Bill C-21, the gun bill, the Conservatives just loved it. They were going to raise money off of it. We were like, “No, we are going to find a solution so that farmers and hunters are not targeted.” We pushed relentlessly and negotiated. That is what we do in Parliament.

It is the same for the issue of getting Ms. Katie Telford to come before committee. The Conservatives were just using their tactics of character assassination and smear, but we said no to the Liberals. We said that we have to find a way to start getting answers.

The NDP was the first party, with our leader, to call for a public inquiry. Tonight, we are the ones leading this discussion. We need this because we are in a situation where we have just gotten allegations, which I think are explosive, that a sitting member of Parliament may have advised a senior Chinese official over the illegal detention, the hostage-taking, of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, whom we know as “the two Michaels”.

The hostage-taking of those two men was a real line that was crossed in this new century in terms of the breakdown of international order and international law. It was incumbent upon all of us, regardless of party, to put the interests of those men and their families first.

I know the member who has been accused. I have sat with him on committee. I am not here to say whether those allegations are true. However, I am saying they are so explosive that the Prime Minister must respond. One of the ways he can respond now is by following the New Democrat call for a public inquiry to restore confidence.

I am not confident that addressing this in just a parliamentary committee is enough. We are also dealing with serious state secret issues. A lot of this comes through what CSIS is going to tell us. Quite frankly, I do not trust the Conservative leader with this kind of information anymore because I see the tactics that he has brought forward.

I blame the Prime Minister for delaying, obfuscating, not addressing the seriousness of this issue and undermining public confidence. However, I think it is equally dangerous to use the tactic of character assassination and smear, as well as trashing anyone who stands in the way of the Conservative agenda on this. Knowing what they are doing, I would certainly never be comfortable knowing that state secrets could be brought to a committee. They can say what they want about David Johnston or the decision of the Prime Minister, in terms of whether it was right or wrong to appoint a special rapporteur, but shame on Conservatives who trashed the reputation of a former governor general. This is a man who was appointed by Stephen Harper and who serves his country with dignity. He deserves better than this kind of smear.

I do not think I will ever be invited to a Trudeau Foundation dinner; I would be very surprised if I were. However, when we have institutions that actually serve the public, it is not acceptable to decide to try and smear them as though they are some kind of Chinese, communist-run foundation of friends and pals. That is ignorant. I disagree with the Prime Minister on most things, but I would never stoop so low as to say that he is some kind of paid stooge for a foreign government. However, that is the language that comes from the leader of the Conservative Party, and that is dangerous because it undermines confidence.

The first time I was called a “traitor”, I thought it was a joke because I serve my country with dignity. However, I realized language like calling people “traitors” and “enemies” is now part of the Conservatives' discourse. This is why we have death threats in this country. There are disinformation reports from the World Economic Forum. We have to rise above this.

There was a time when the Parliament of Canada would have been shocked and appalled that any member would have partied with an extreme right neo-Nazi German extremist, like Christine Anderson. However, she is a folk hero to many on that side. There was a time when any Conservative leader who knew that their members were cavorting with extreme-right German extremist groups would have drawn a line, but that does not happen anymore.

We are in a situation where we are moving further away from where we need to be as an institution that reassures faith in the public that they can trust not only that our elections are completely protected and the rights of citizens are protected, but also that public institutions serve the public interest and that the people we elect to serve are doing it with a belief that public service is a public good. We have to get back there.

When we look at the situation before us, with the allegations of foreign interference, we know that there were serious questions during the convoy about Russian disinformation, proxy sites and the use of RT. It favoured certain political interests in this country, because it was undermining the present government, but there were serious questions about Russian disinformation in the convoy scandal.

We need to make sure that we have the tools to examine if this is interfering with how our democracy operates. The situation of allegations of potential interference by Chinese state actors is also concerning for another profound reason. We see a rise of anti-Asian hate and anti-Asian violence in this country. We need to say very clearly, as parliamentarians, that we are not exploiting this situation for our own personal and political gain. We are deeply concerned, just as people in the Chinese community are concerned and just as people in the Iranian community or any other community would be concerned, about any potential foreign actors. This is why the Prime Minister needs to reassure the public that he understands this.

I respect David Johnston. I do not know if we needed him as a special rapporteur. The allegations that have come out tonight are very serious, and I think the Prime Minister must respond to those allegations. I think it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to say that we have to take this out of the realm of the partisan monkey house, which this place has sometimes descended to in the last few days, and to put it in the hands of an independent inquiry that has the power to compel testimony, the power to gather documents and—

[Talal Dakalbab]

I'm going to come back to what I said initially.

Bill C‑21 provides for a maximum penalty of 14 years, the harshest penalty after a life sentence.

I think that sends a pretty clear message about how serious the crime is.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to represent the interests of the good people of Regina—Qu'Appelle and represent my caucus as the opposition House leader.

We need to frame what is going on here because what we saw over the last few weeks was a despicable display at committee, a mockery of the parliamentary process. We found out that the Prime Minister has known for years about allegations of foreign interference from the Communist regime in Beijing, specifically helping the Liberal Party. Chinese representatives of that Communist regime here in Canada said they preferred a Liberal government, and there are reports coming from The Globe and Mail, citing CSIS reports and national security committee reports, indicating that there is a large “clandestine network” of funding of candidates that is coming from the Communist regime in Beijing. Conservatives have been trying to shine a light on this at committee. We have all seen the lengths that the Liberals have gone to.

Today is what is called an opposition day. Today is the supply day when opposition parties are allowed to introduce a topic and have a debate on something. Normally the government gets to set the calendar. This is its right, as it brings forward legislation, but a certain number of days throughout the year are allocated to each opposition party. For today, the Conservatives put forward a motion to call on the government to abandon its plan to increase taxes on beer, wine and spirits. That is what we are supposed to be debating right now.

On Monday, we had a fulsome debate on this whole issue of foreign interference, and I should point out that Conservatives, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, indicated to the NDP that we are totally fine with expanding the scope of the investigation. We believe that if there are allegations of foreign interference coming from any country, they should be investigated. We were willing to work with the New Democrats on that. We were hoping that they would vote in favour of our motion on Monday calling on the Prime Minister's chief of staff to testify at committee. The problem was that they did not let us know. They kept ragging the puck. It was a very simple question. It was the exact same motion that we had proposed at committee. Even the NDP House leader had indicated his support at committee.

It kind of reminds me of something that happened a little while ago. I was in the chamber and I saw the NDP House leader get up and try to indicate that the NDP opposed certain amendments at committee when it was dealing with Bill C-21. Of course, Bill C-21 is the piece of legislation that would massively expand the power of the government to take away lawful firearms from Canadians. I am not trying to mix topics too much, but the reason I am talking about this is that Conservatives recognized instantly what was going on. We saw it at committee. We said it was going to make unlawful so many firearms that hunters and indigenous communities use every season for their long-held Canadian heritage and history of using firearms legally.

What happened was that Conservatives at the committee saw that not only were these bad policy amendments, but they were also out of order, beyond the scope of the bill itself, so at the committee, almost immediately, we asked the chair to rule those amendments out of order. The chair said no. The Liberal chair said that the amendments were in order.

Why do I bring this up? At committee, the Conservatives challenged the chair. We asked our colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP to please support us on this as the amendments were out of order. The NDP voted no. The NDP voted to keep those amendments in Bill C-21, yet the NDP House leader came to this chamber and asked the Speaker to do what his team actually voted against at committee. He tried to take credit, saying they were bad. It was only after their MPs heard from their constituents, who told them how terrible it was. This is exactly what we are facing here today.

We have tried to give the opportunity to the NDP members multiple times to hold this government to account and yet, time and time again, they are showing Canadians that they would rather prop up Liberal corruption and help keep the truth covered, instead of shining a light. It is very disappointing. It is very disappointing that we see the NDP here on an opposition day move this motion. They are trying to come up with this phony story.

Conservatives want a public inquiry. We have called for it. We were trying to get this report back in the House; we could have dealt with this last week. They are the ones playing procedural games and we are not going to let them get away with it. We are going to highlight to Canadians the hypocrisy that the NDP has been showing.

I just want to indicate that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

In closing, I want to make a couple of points about this. I hear from colleagues across the way who are throwing all kinds of baseless allegations that are just not backed up by facts. Conservatives have been calling for a public inquiry. The first time the Leader of the Opposition raised this issue in the House, the Prime Minister said that he did not know anything about it, so we started to press. We started to call for this. We started to call for a full, independent public inquiry. What did the government do? It appointed a special rapporteur.

I understand. I understand the hon. government House leader and I am hoping to have a discussion with him in a few moments, but it is important to set the stage for it.

I will wrap it up with this. It is impossible to restore the confidence that has been shaken by the Prime Minister's inaction on this file without a public inquiry, not a special rapporteur with close family ties to the Prime Minister, not someone on the Trudeau Foundation board. We support the call for a full public inquiry and we are just disappointed that it took so long to drag the NDP kicking and screaming to ensure that the Prime Minister's chief of staff testifies at committee.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Good afternoon.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, honourable members, thank you for inviting me today.

I am here to discuss Canada's bail system, an issue that has generated growing public interest in recent months.

I want to commend the committee for studying this issue. It is an important one. It is vital to our public safety. It is also very emotional subject matter, particularly for the families of those who have been impacted by violent crime and for offenders who are attempting to pursue their paths toward reform and reintegration. On both sides of the equation, it is terribly important that we undertake this study in a constructive and civil way, and I want to commend each of you for the work and the energy that you are putting into it.

As we know all too well, the consequences of violent crime in our communities cannot be overstated. We owe it to all Canadians to take concrete action to address and reduce crime, so that all Canadians can be safe.

This begins with smart policy and investments in our law enforcement, as well as upstream social supports for those who are most vulnerable and at risk. Ensuring that Canada's criminal justice system prioritizes rehabilitation and safe reintegration goes hand in hand with all of those efforts.

As Minister of Public Safety, I am responsible for Correctional Service Canada, and thus the agency in charge of the rehabilitation of offenders and their safe re-entry into the community.

As such, this issue is at the core of my mandate. We know that addressing the issue of repeat violent offenders is a very complex one, but it is essential.

It begins with taking a hard look at achieving rehabilitation and safe reintegration. Reintegration comes with its own unique set of challenges, which, if left unaddressed, will increase the likelihood of someone reoffending and, by extension, causing harm, grief and loss.

That's why, in June 2022, I tabled the federal framework to reduce recidivism. It was to break the cycle of reoffending, to support rehabilitation and to make our communities safer for everyone. The framework is an important step toward identifying factors that lead people to reoffend and determining how to overcome those challenges to support the safest reintegration into their respective communities.

Developed in consultation with a variety of stakeholders, the framework lays out five priority areas essential to reintegration. They are housing, education, employment, health and positive support networks.

By June 2023, we will have an implementation plan to ensure that the supports are sustained over time.

This framework is an important step, but we know there is no one magic solution to addressing repeat violent offenders. Addressing the root causes of crime is also crucial to its success, and in this vein, Mr. Chair, we have made concrete investments in terms of the social determinants that can often lead to a life of crime.

Since 2015 we have focused on the social causes of crime with programs like the $250-million building safer communities fund, so that we can tackle gun crime and support community-led projects. This is in addition to the over $40 million provided annually through the national crime prevention strategy, which invests in community-based efforts that prevent youth involvement in crime and help to address the risk factors that have been known to lead to criminal activity.

More recently, I announced $5.79 million in funding under the crime prevention action fund for 902 ManUp’s Black empowerment initiative, in Halifax.

This funding will help empower young Black people across Nova Scotia to make the right choices by giving them a strong foundation in education and in the pursuit of their career, and by reducing barriers to the types of services and supports they need, as led by the community itself.

Since 2018, the gun and gang violence action fund has also provided funding to provinces and territories to increase community resources and to get guns and gun violence off our streets.

In Ontario, for example, this funding has been used to funnel additional resources to local law enforcement, prosecutors and community partners to reduce illegal gun and gang violence. This is in addition to the over $450 million that we've allocated to the CBSA in the last two years alone to reinforce our borders and stop the illegal flow of guns into our country.

We realize, of course, that some individuals go on to reoffend, and that's why we provide annual funding to our provincial and territorial counterparts, helping to build their capacity to identify and monitor high-risk violent offenders, and equip them with better tools for prosecution and conviction.

Mr. Chair, smart policy on guns is also an essential policy and part of this plan. We have made historic strides in combatting gun violence through our recent firearms legislation. In 2020, our government banned over 1,500 models of assault-style weapons, and last year we expanded background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Bill C-21, which is currently being studied by Parliament at committee, will increase maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years for firearms-related offences and include new charges for altering the magazine or cartridge of a gun to exceed its lawful capacity. This is about tackling violent crime and preventing senseless tragic deaths.

We know that no single initiative can solve the complex problem that is gun violence. This bill is merely one facet of our comprehensive approach.

This legislative session, we agreed to strengthen public safety through the Criminal Code, with amendments targeting violent offenders and serious offences committed with firearms. I know this committee has also been seized with legislation that includes Bill C-75 and Bill C-71, and, as I said, our colleagues at the Standing Committee on Public Safety are also studying Bill C-21.

When it comes to bail reform, Mr. Chair, we are listening to Canadians; we are listening to the law enforcement community, and we are listening to victims and survivors.

I am working closely with the justice minister, Mr. Lametti, as well as with our provincial and territorial partners, to carefully examine how the bail system is structured and ensure that it takes into account the safety of all Canadians.

As you know, Mr. Chair, we recently met with our federal, provincial and territorial colleagues to talk about the ways in which we can make certain modifications to the bail system so that we can address specifically the challenges around repeat violent offenders who have used either firearms or other weapons. We have committed to undertaking this work within this legislative session, one in which we will work in close collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners as well as with all the members of this committee and all parliamentarians.

Mr. Chair, I am very much looking forward to the questions and comments from your committee. Thank you very much.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

Chief Louis, I'd like to continue with you.

I was on the public safety committee a couple of weeks ago, and we heard from a witness representing the Nunavut Association of Municipalities. He was also talking about how hunting was used to really shield a lot of families from the high prices of food, and about that connection to the land. They were talking about the danger that certain elements of Bill C-21 posed to their hunting rifles, which they depend on.

I'm proud to represent a riding out here on Vancouver Island that sits on the traditional territories of many Coast Salish first nations, part of the Nuu-chah-nulth first nation, and the Pacheedaht and Ditidaht first nations.

I guess my final question to you in the time I have left is this. You know, we have a diet here that is very much based on what the ocean provides. If you could just talk about the access to processing capacity.... What can the federal government do more to ensure that first nations have access to those traditional foods, to help them process them and to maybe tackle the problem that many communities are experiencing with these high food prices?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Kortbeet, I would like to ask you a question in closing.

In the open letter that you published with some of your colleagues last December, you indicated that it is quite possible to have legislation similar to Bill C‑21 while preserving hunting practices.

You mentioned other countries where this works quite well, including Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and many others. That seems to be a desired and desirable compromise.

One of the biggest concerns people have about the G‑4 and G‑46 amendments is that they will no longer be able to hunt, which is not necessarily true.

Can you tell us a bit more about what you learned about the legislation in other countries?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you for clarifying that and confirming that.

In our previous federal Parliament we passed into law Bill C-15. One of the primary aims of that legislation was to ensure that the Government of Canada, in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, takes all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration.

We saw in December of last year that the Assembly of First Nations took a very unusual step in passing an emergency resolution that identified article 5, article 18, article 34 and article 39 as the reasoning that they were opposed to these amendments of Bill C-21.

In your mind, Mr. Savikataaq, do these amendments in the proposed legislation from the Government of Canada satisfy the principles of the government's previous Bill C-15 when it is attempting to harmonize Canada's laws with the declaration?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank all of our witnesses, some of whom are reappearing, for helping to guide our committee through this study.

Mr. Savikataaq, I'd like to direct my questions to you. I want to thank you for your opening statement, for making an appearance and for also giving a very important perspective—the indigenous perspective—on what these proposed amendments would mean for communities like yours.

When Bill C-21 was first introduced, on the day it was introduced, the minister made mention of the fact that amendments would also be added to the bill. When they were brought in, and we did spend a lot of time on them, there was quite a visceral reaction from many indigenous communities.

I just want to know, before those amendments were brought in, were any communities within your jurisdiction ever consulted by the Government of Canada on these amendments and what they would mean for communities like yours?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

I am sorry that happened to you.

At this stage of the game, what do you expect from the government and the members of this committee when it comes to the passage of Bill C‑21. I know that the government is reworking some amendments and may come back to us with amendments on military-style assault weapons. As it has been said many times, this was not an accurate way of describing the weapons in question. There are some good things and some not so good things. The process could be improved.

At this stage of the game, what do you expect from the government and the opposition members?

[Joe Savikataaq, President, Nunavut Association of Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank you for the invitation to present to this committee.

I would also like to express our appreciation to our member of Parliament, Lori Idlout, for her work in representing the issues of Nunavut with respect to the proposed amendments to Bill C-21.

Finally, thank you to all those who agreed to withdraw the amendments. By doing so, you have recognized that hunting is an important part of Inuit identity, culture and survival. Had this proceeded, it would have had a devastating effect on Nunavummiut.

This morning I'm representing 25 communities and 25 mayors, as I'm the president of all the municipalities here in Nunavut. The Nunavut Association of Municipalities, representing the 25 municipalities across Nunavut, have openly opposed the recent amendments to Bill C-21. If the amendments were passed, the use of firearms that are critical for hunting and for safety on the land would have made us criminals in our own land and our own country.

Many of the proposed firearms—there are approximately 1,500 of them listed in the amendments—have become a necessary part of our culture. They provide protection from aggressive wildlife and allow us to harvest for our families and for our community members where we're living. With the cost of living in Nunavut being approximately 44% higher than the national average, we need to hunt to offset the cost of food. The other factor is the potential for human-animal conflicts that we may encounter on the land. The legal firearms that we are currently using allow us to maintain our own food security and personal safety.

To provide you with an example, a hunter would use a firearm to deter an aggressive bear. Most often it takes more than several shots to ward them off. If a bear cannot be scared off and continues to charge a hunter, the amendments would not allow the peace of mind and the ability of the hunter to return to their loved ones. If this bill were passed, there would have been more shoot-to-kill situations rather than deterring. This legislation, if amended, would have increased fatalities for both wildlife and people.

Trying to reduce gun violence by including the firearms used by law-abiding gun owners for survival would have caused hardship to Nunavummiut. Inuit respect their firearms. They are a tool for survival. Gun owners in Nunavut are licensed with a background check and a renewal every five years. A national ban on hunting rifles that allow us to maintain our own food security by hunting and personal security while maintaining a cultural lifestyle on the land is continued colonialism and does not respect our way of life. Nunavut was created so that our culture and lifestyle would survive.

If the intention of these amendments was to improve the safety of humans living in urban areas, that would make total sense. It does not make sense to include the firearms that Inuit hunters need to harvest their food from the land and the water. Life is hard enough as it is for Nunavummiut. Nunavut has the highest rate of indigenous low-income households, with 22% of the population living below the poverty line in Canada.

If these amendments were passed, a hunter providing for his family, the elders and the community by using the right piece of equipment to maintain the safety of the hunter against aggressive animals would have unknowingly committed a crime. They would have a prison sentence of possibly up to 10 years. People who take other people's lives often receive less time than this. To counteract gun violence, the policy to do so should not affect law-abiding Nunavummiut trying to survive, make a living, get by and provide for their families.

If there are further amendments to Bill C-21, we request that Inuit be consulted so that we can inform you of the impact the amendments will have on our culture and traditional lifestyle. Thank you very much for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Dr. Anna Dare, General Surgeon, Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns]

Thank you.

I am here today as a scientist, physician, Canadian citizen and mother. I am a surgeon and epidemiologist at the University of Toronto.

I did not set out to study firearms deaths or policy. During my post-doctoral fellowship I examined the major causes of death in the Americas. I was surprised to find that firearm injury was an important cause of premature death, including in Canada, and one that could be addressed with a public health science approach.

Legislation is widely considered to be the foundation on which effective public health responses to firearm harms are built. Amendments G-4 and G-46 specifically address assault weapons. The public health intent of prohibiting these weapons is to remove from public circulation those firearms that can quickly and efficiently inflict maximal harm on the human body.

Assault weapon bans reduce mass shootings. This has been studied in several peer nations that have introduced them. The highest-quality studies demonstrate that legislation prohibiting assault weapons and restricting magazine capacity has led to the reduction in, one, the number of mass shootings, and two, the number of fatalities per event.

Australia's national Firearms Act, which was introduced in 1996 after the country's largest mass shooting, closely resembles Bill C-21. Its definition of assault weapons is similar to the G-4 and G-46 amendments. Many scholars have analyzed the impact of these laws over the past 25 years since they were introduced. There is strong evidence that the laws caused reductions in mass shootings in Australia. No public mass shootings have occurred in Australia for 23 years after the legislation was adopted. The chance of that happening, in the absence of the law change, is one in 200,000. There's also consistent evidence that rates of firearm suicides decreased after the law was introduced, by 74%, on average.

Prohibitions must be comprehensive, restrictive, national and durable. Definitions are critical. Legislation prohibiting assault weapons must outline a specific set of characteristics of a firearm and its ammunition that make it lethal and inappropriate for civilian ownership. Loopholes and limitations can substantially weaken the public health impact. A definition must cover both current and future variants.

I would like to speak now to my experience as a surgeon and as a Canadian.

I wish I could bring you into our trauma bay to show you the harms firearms do every week in our community. It is shocking how quickly someone can lose their entire blood volume after a gunshot wound. The heart looks like a deflated balloon—still trying to beat but with nothing to pump out. Making your way to the quiet room after never gets easier. You are telling someone's mother, partner or child that they have been shot and have died.

Mass shootings leave an outsized imprint on the national psyche. They strike at the heart of our belief that we live in a safe, tolerant and peaceful country. The political responses that mass shooting engender also define countries on the international stage. “Tough on crime” is not the answer here. Nine out of the last 10 mass shootings in Canada were reportedly committed by Canadians without a criminal record.

Canada is not exceptional in its need to balance firearms ownership and use with public safety. Other countries, including New Zealand, have all been through similar national reckonings. In 2019, following a mass shooting, New Zealand banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and further restricted magazine capacity and firearm caliber. Just like in Canada, emotions ran high as the legislation was being crafted, but the conversation has moved on. When the public was polled a year later, 81% supported the law change. Three years later, my family members in New Zealand and many others still go hunting with legally owned firearms.

To practice science is to ask questions. I leave you with these: How do we balance public safety with legitimate firearm use? What are the core values of our society? What trade-offs are we willing to make for fewer deaths and for safer communities? When the next mass shooting happens, will we regret failing to act today? Would we be able to say to someone's family member, “I did everything I could”?

The physicians represented in our organization and the patients and families across Canada ask that you permanently remove firearms that are designed to kill people efficiently and quickly from our communities.

Thank you.

[Suzanne Zaccour]

I appreciate the question.

I want to add a little pre-answer: Every time we take a position on anything, we're always asked, “Is there not another, better way, and is that going to be sufficient?” Every time, we say we want to reach full equality and will take every necessary step. We don't believe in choosing between two partial ways to make women safe.

That being said, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the other proposals we've made regarding Bill C-21. When there is danger, it's important to act quickly. Guns need to be removed quickly and not returned to the gun owner to dispose of them where they see fit—to give them to their brother or roommate. We proposed solutions to make these yellow flags—I think they've been called that—quicker and more effective.

We also made suggestions regarding protection orders. People currently subject to one should be ineligible to have guns. We understand this would have limited use for public officers, who are not subject to the same regime, but it would be useful to target some gun owners engaging in family violence.

I also want to respond to your idea that the air has been sucked out of the rest of the discussion. That is certainly true. There's been an escalation in the debate. I believe disinformation is part of the reason. We hear questions about automatic weapons, which are not part of the debate. We hear questions about the way a gun looks. I've read the amendments, and there's nothing about colour, so there's some kind of disinformation going on. We felt compelled to re-enter this debate, in order to recentre the conversation on what it's really about, because most people don't read laws for a living and might be very confused by the debate currently.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll devote this last section to the National Association of Women and the Law.

First of all, I want to recognize your work on this bill. We've had some fantastic conversations about possible amendments to strengthen it. One unfortunate thing about amendments G-4 and G-46 is that they suck all the oxygen out of the room when we talk about Bill C-21, in general. When you look at the middle clauses of this bill—especially the ones empowering chief firearms officers to be much more vigilant in revoking licences, if there is ever any suspected domestic abuse or violence going on—they are, in fact, probably much more effective, in my view, in terms of public safety.

I was also very interested in Dr. Bryant's opening suggestion of a half measure, perhaps: the possibility of using the classification of “restricted” so that the firearms in question have to be registered. There's a need for a restricted possession and authorization licence, with much more stringent requirements put in place. I think that, in a home where domestic violence is present, any firearm in the hands of the wrong person will be dangerous, no matter its make or model.

I know we can't talk in detail about the amendments in place for other clauses of the bill, but I would like to invite the National Association of Women and the Law to talk about the submissions they made to committee members that attempt to strengthen those particular clauses of the bill, so that chief firearms officers have even more authority to target individuals when a firearm is present, so we can address violence going on in a domestic situation.

Could you talk about the rationale behind what brought you to that, and your experience and expertise in this area?

[Ken Price]

It's a big question. I think Bill C-21 captures a number of topics, and it is worthwhile that the committee is looking at that and trying to figure out how we can improve it.

Maybe one comment I'll make is there's still, I think, an open discussion with respect to the handgun freeze, exemptions for that handgun freeze and exemptions particularly for elite sport shooters and whether that will be expanded to continue a handgun market that I think we're intending to freeze. That's an open discussion, one that we have taken a position on and one that we're concerned about.

When we look back at what Bill C-21 has in it overall, it talks about borders. It talks about punishment for abusers. It talks about resources for underserved communities. It talks about gun control, and it's starting to address, I think, issues around ghost guns and replica weapons. Those are the topics. It's the breadth of Bill C-21 that we admire, and we would say that we want to support it because, imperfect even as it is today, it would be a far cry better than where we are right now.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

I only have approximately one minute left, so I want to get one last question to you, Dr. Bryant.

In your opening remarks you made some suggestions about amendments that could be proposed to Bill C-21. You did make mention of the possibility of using the firearms that were listed in amendment G-46, but also codified by amendment G-4, as moving that classification to a restricted category. I know you had a little bit of an exchange on this with Mr. Lloyd, but could you add a little bit to that?

By having a restricted category, what does that mean to the firearm owner? What additional safety steps are in place for the classification of a restricted firearm? I'm also assuming that an exemption might be needed to allow some of those firearms to be used for hunting purposes. Currently, restricted firearms can only legally travel between your home and the range, or a special authorization is needed if you're moving places of residence.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you. That leads to my next question.

In the previous Parliament we passed Bill C-15, which essentially is requiring the Government of Canada, through consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples, to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada, the laws passed in our federal Parliament, are consistent with the declaration.

I believe it was in December that the Assembly of First Nations passed an emergency resolution by consensus. They specifically identified article 5, article 18, article 34 and article 39, where they felt Bill C-21 was contravening those parts of the declaration. I've spoken to the indigenous members of my caucus who have said that to have an emergency resolution at the AFN pass by consensus is virtually unheard of.

Obviously, that consultation had not taken place before the amendments to Bill C-21 were introduced. I don't think we get enough indigenous voices heard here in Ottawa. That is a disservice. It goes against the principle of a nation-to-nation relationship. It goes against the principle of Bill C-15, which was passed into law.

I want to hear from you, Dr. Bryant, because the indigenous members of my caucus and indigenous communities across Canada have repeatedly said that these amendments affect firearms that are tools. Particularly in the north, my colleague Lori Idlout—she's the member for Nunavut—said that when you're face to face with a polar bear, you can't be equipped with a bolt-action rifle. There is an absolute need for a rifle that can discharge in a semi-automatic manner.

Are you hearing the same thing from indigenous communities? Can you report back to this committee on what some of their concerns have been over this process? I think that's an important voice that needs to be added to this conversation to provide that important context.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'll continue with you.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of banning assault weapons. We have held that position for a long time and it has not changed. There were concerns about amendments G‑4 and G‑46, which have been withdrawn. The use of a list has been rather confusing for everyone because the list is hard to follow.

With the help of public servants, we have come to understand that the only list that will actually be continually updated is the RCMP's list. Any new weapon that comes onto the market will be added to that list and not the list of firearms set out in the Criminal Code under Bill C‑21. Rather than using a list, I am wondering whether it would not be better to add some sort of safeguard to the act under which we could add, but not remove, firearms from the RCMP's list to the act without necessarily taking any legislative action.

That might reassure the groups that are advocating for better gun control that we will not start backtracking when it comes to prohibited weapons and those that have already been classified.

What do you think, Mr. Price?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Whitmore or Ms. Zaccour, do you have anything you would like to add? Do you think this might be a good idea and that it should be added to Bill C‑21 or to another bill to amend the Firearms Act?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here with us this morning.

Mr. Price, unfortunately for you, you have become a regular at these committee meetings. When you were speaking with my colleague, Ms. Damoff, you mentioned an article that was published in yesterday's editions of the Montreal Gazette and the Ottawa Citizen. It said that, while we are debating this issue, new weapons are coming on the market, as has been the case for a long time. Since the 2020 regulation, manufacturers continue to circumvent the rules to put new weapons on the market.

From what I understand of Canada's classification of firearms, there are three classes: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited. When a manufacturer puts a new firearm on the market, it is automatically considered a non-restricted weapon. Only later can it become classified as prohibited. The RCMP is not automatically informed of the arrival of all these new firearms on the market, so when it realizes that a new firearm may have to be classified as prohibited or restricted, it conducts an analysis and then the firearm can be classified as prohibited.

Would it be possible to do the opposite? Could a firearm automatically be classified as prohibited before the manufacturer puts it on the market? Then we could wait for the RCMP to analyze it to determine whether it should be classified as non-restricted or remain a prohibited weapon. Perhaps there is a way to include that in Bill C‑21. Perhaps that is another way to change the Firearms Act.

Do you think such a change could be a good thing?

[Ken Price]

Thank you for the question.

I would say it is difficult to find that centre ground, apparently. This is the public safety committee, so almost by its title we feel like this starts with public safety as the primary goal of any of the initiatives here. We would say that reasonable use should be paired very closely with what is required, recognizing that ever more powerful guns, if not used properly, have a lethal impact on victims, which is what happened in our case.

We would say that you should proceed cautiously. We should be adding firearms not with enthusiasm for more power and more capability, but very cautiously and with a view that it's going to be impossible to screen out every person who might abuse their privilege. Therefore, we need to make sure that the weapons are part of the mitigation strategy we have.

As victims and as the general public, we are stakeholders in this discussion as much as anybody else who uses those weapons. That's where you have to find that balance. We would say that now it's apparent to us that the balance is out of whack a little bit. We believe that G-4, and Bill C-21 overall, are an attempt to bring that into line. We hope this committee finds satisfactory middle ground to accomplish that.

[Ken Price, Member, Danforth Families for Safe Communities]

Our presence here today is a reminder of what happens when guns are used for violent ends. Knowing what we have experienced, we're here to urge you to put safety at the centre of your decision-making. There is evidence of a proliferation of powerful, rapid-fire, quick-loading weapons, and these have been used for violence among the citizens that this government must help to protect.

We recognize other stakeholders in this debate. Hunting, warding off pests on farms and most sport shooting are legitimate activities, but “reasonable for use” is the key phrase in the law guiding the availability and classification of firearms for private owners. Recognizing the lethal power of all guns, that should mean asking first why a particular gun is needed to accommodate an activity, not just letting industry and enthusiasm push new weapons into the mix. Permit firearms cautiously, because, as has been noted, any gun can be a weapon, and the more powerful, the more lethal.

The government has taken steps in the past in the law to protect the public from categories of weapons. The risk outweighed the utility, and we must now recognize and mitigate the unacceptable risks we face in current times, enabled by modern handguns and assault-style rifles.

We support Bill C-21. It is wide-reaching and is not just about gun bans, because addressing gun violence needs a multi-faceted approach. Bill C-21 does modernize gun control to reflect that in the last 25 years or so we added a bunch of assault-style rifles and allowed a million handguns into the hands of private owners, and that even with higher levels of training and scrutiny for those we restricted, and sometimes because we didn't restrict them, the availability of these guns has contributed to poorer public safety outcomes.

We have followed the debate on Bill C-21. We think the legislation could be improved in some areas, and we've made prior comments on that, but as G-4 and G-46 have been debated, we support the idea of a legally enshrined definition of what an assault-style rifle is, and a lawful ceiling would be clearer for stakeholders. Relying solely on the Governor in Council has led to obvious inconsistency and has permitted a proliferation of guns used in some of the most notorious shootings in Canada.

What the latest StatsCan report on gun violence in 2021 said to us is that, while we dither, more preventable deaths have occurred. The problem is still significant. It is national and it is more profound than in countries worth benchmarking. Let's get G-4 and G-46 and other amendments into the bill, and let's get Bill C-21 passed.

Time is of the essence. Thank you for your attention to this complex and important issue, and thank you for including us today.

[Dr. Erin Whitmore, Executive Director, Ending Violence Association of Canada, National Association of Women and the Law]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for this opportunity to speak with you today.

I'm Erin Whitmore, the executive director of the Ending Violence Association of Canada, a national non-profit organization that works closely with provincial and territorial organizations that support survivors of gender-based violence, including sexual assault centres, shelters and community-based services.

I am co-presenting today with my colleague, Suzanne Zaccour, head of feminist law reform with the National Association of Women and the Law. Both of our organizations are participating today as representatives of #Women4GunControl or #FemmesContreLesViolencesArmées, a coalition of over 30 women's and feminist organizations from all regions across the country calling for a ban on assault-style firearms.

This week, for International Women’s Day, we released an open letter to all party leaders and members of this committee urging that a permanent and comprehensive ban on assault-style firearms be enshrined in the Criminal Code. We want to take this opportunity to remind the committee of the significance of Bill C-21 and its amendments to our collective efforts to minimize and prevent the harms caused by guns in situations of family, domestic and sexual violence. Banning assault-style firearms will increase community safety and reduce gender-based violence.

However, we are concerned that the opportunity before this committee to strengthen public safety and to prevent firearm-related violence—including femicide, family violence and mass shootings—is being lost in the current climate of emotional and partisan debate.

As representatives of organizations that work closely with survivors of all forms of gender-based violence, we see first-hand that gun violence takes many forms and plays out in distinct ways in the lives of women and children. Gun violence against women and girls can and does include femicide, but guns are also used as tools to threaten, intimidate, control, terrorize and physically assault women and girls. The use of a gun is one of the many tactics by some abusers to make it increasingly difficult and extremely dangerous for a woman to not comply with an abuser’s demands or to leave the situation.

Statistics Canada data show that in 2021 almost one-quarter of the 197 women homicide victims were killed by shooting, and women accounted for 84% of the 803 victims of firearm-related intimate partner violence.

In the dynamics of an abusive intimate partner relationship, we know that the presence of any make or model of gun is a significant risk factor for more severe forms of violence and death. When that gun is an assault-style firearm—that is, a firearm designed for military or tactical use with the capacity to inflict significant lethality and harm—the potential of these individual acts of violence to escalate to mass shootings involving the broader community, and targeting women in particular, has already been demonstrated too many times.

In today's climate of increased anti-feminist sentiment and other forms of hate and racism, which have fuelled previous mass shootings, the need for a ban on assault-style firearms has never been more pressing. The risks are simply too great to ignore.

Provisions in other parts of the bill make important interventions that have the potential to better protect those at risk or currently experiencing family and domestic violence. The National Association of Women and the Law has previously submitted a brief to this committee, endorsed by 14 organizations, with recommendations to further strengthen these aspects of the bill.

Today, in solidarity with 32 women's and feminist organizations, we want to make clear that inclusion of the amendments that define and permanently ban assault-style weapons is an equally crucial step in mitigating current and future harm in the lives of women, children and communities.

Bill C-21 alone will not end gender-based violence. Greater investments in prevention measures are needed and are just as pressing as this current legislation. However, we are at a critical moment in choosing what steps we are willing to take as a country to ensure that we are doing all that we can to prioritize women's right to live safely without the threat and fear of gun violence.

On behalf of 32 organizations who have joined the #Women4GunControl coalition, we urge the committee and government to move forward with this legislation, including an evergreen definition and a permanent ban on assault-style firearms.

Gender-based violence involving guns is a terrifying and deadly problem in Canada. In supporting legislation that includes an evergreen definition and a permanent ban on assault-style firearms, members of this committee will be acting to reduce gun violence and save lives as the 32 organizations that have joined the #Women4GunControl coalition and a strong majority of Canadians want you to do.

Thank you.

[Dr. Teri Bryant, Chief Firearms Officer, Alberta Chief Firearms Office]

Hello ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for having me today.

As Alberta's chief firearms officer, I have a dual mandate to supervise Firearms Act licensing in Alberta, as other CFOs do, but also to work relentlessly for a more principled firearms program in Canada.

Since assuming this role, I have made safety number one. This means rejecting trendy solutions and focusing on the work that will truly make a difference. Part of that work is ensuring that responsible, law-abiding firearms owners in Alberta understand all the laws and regulations they face.

I, therefore, regularly engage with members of Alberta's vibrant firearms community. In 2021-22 alone, I attended well over 50 events and met with thousands of Albertans. Time and again, I hear that confidence in Canada's firearms control system has eroded. That confidence is an essential element in building safer communities. If we want people to go beyond legal minimums and proactively contribute to public safety, they must feel heard and respected.

Even after the withdrawal of G-4 and G-46, Bill C-21 continues to undermine confidence in our firearms control system while contributing nothing to reducing the violent misuse of firearms. Bill C-21 is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. Prohibiting specific types of firearms is not an effective way of improving public safety. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been used on more effective approaches, such as the enforcement of firearms prohibition orders, reinforcing the border or combatting the drug trade and gang activity.

The ban on most handgun transfers and the order in council prohibitions of May 2020 have had a devastating impact on the assets of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. With strokes of a pen, billions of dollars' worth of legally acquired property was rendered unsaleable.

The scope of Bill C-21 is absurdly broad. The ban on handgun transfers includes even single-shot muzzleloading flintlocks and percussion revolvers and pistols, as well as precious historical artifacts and family heirlooms.

The loss of the sales of handguns and, potentially, almost all popular modern rifle designs threatens the survival of many multi-generational family firearms businesses. Gun shows, which are often a major social event and economic contributor in struggling small communities, are also being hard hit. The survival of many long-established reputable shooting sports has been threatened. The competitions put on by these organizations bring visitors that support the economic viability of small communities. Without new entrants, these sports will atrophy and die.

Over time, Bill C-21's prohibitions will also undermine the economic viability of the shooting ranges Canadians rely on for a safe, well-regulated place to shoot. These ranges are not only where hunters go to sight in their hunting rifles, but also where police and others who require firearms for their jobs go to train.

Many things could have been done to lessen the collateral damage of Bill C-21. The firearms targeted for prohibition could have been made restricted and their numbers capped, or if these guns are prohibited, the cost to the taxpayer and the impact on property rights could be reduced by grandfathering them and allowing full transferability among licensed Canadians. Shooting sports could have been safeguarded by allowing the chief firearms officer of each province to designate which sport shooting organizations in his or her province can write letters allowing carefully vetted individuals access to sporting exemptions.

Provisions could also have been included to address the real issues around illegal firearms; 3-D printing alone could easily supply the entire demand for illegal firearms across Canada before long. Regulating 3-D printing without destroying new industries like video game development will require new and smarter approaches.

The fact that Bill C-21 does not include any such damage reduction measures reinforces the conclusion that the goal of this bill is demonstratively not about public safety, but an attempt to destroy long-established communities of law-abiding firearms owners across the country by targeting their property. These are the people who perform a vital public service by socializing new firearms owners into responsible firearms use. They are the allies, not the enemies of public safety.

I urge you to recommend the withdrawal of Bill C-21 in its entirety, or to at least allow amendments to reduce its collateral damage. Strengthening public safety is hard enough. Please don't allow Bill C-21 to make it harder.

Thank you. I'm happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 60 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. The chair takes particular note of that, because the chair fails to do this all the time. For interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice at the bottom of their screens of “floor”, “English” or “French”. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee resumes its study of the effects of the withdrawn amendments G-4 and G-46 to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

We have two panels of witnesses today. In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

For the first hour, we have, from Alberta's Chief Firearms Office, Dr. Teri Bryant, chief firearms officer; from the National Association of Women and the Law, Suzanne Zaccour, head of feminist law reform; from the Ending Violence Association of Canada, Erin Whitmore, executive director; and from Danforth Families for Safe Communities, Ken Price and Noor Samiei, who are members.

Welcome to all. I will give each group up to five minutes for an opening statement, and then we will proceed with rounds of questions.

I will now invite Dr. Bryant to make an opening statement.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes.

Online Streaming Act

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, normally, there would not be much debate in the House when we talk about making updates to the Broadcasting Act, which came into effect in 1991. At face value, most Canadians would say that a lot has changed since then. A little thing called the Internet came along, and most would agree.

I have talked about this topic in the House before and I am pretty proud of myself. I am pretty sure that I was the first MP in Canadian history to put Boyz II Men in the parliamentary record, when talking about the legislation before us, because times have changed a little bit. Back in 1991, Boyz II Men, Bryan Adams, MC Hammer and Monty Python were on the charts. I wanted to put that in the record again, and I am glad I have done that.

The goals of the Broadcasting Act have been reasonable: respecting official languages and providing an avenue for Canadian content in the traditional media at the time of TV and radio. Here is the thing I have said in the House, sadly, on many issues over and over again: Only the NDP and the Liberals, working together, can take something so mundane and so innocuous and make a disaster out of it when it comes to policy.

Here is how I know that. Outside of the Ottawa bubble, there are not too many Canadians who know what Bill C-4 or Bill S-252 or Bill C-39 is when it comes to government legislation. We know that the government is in trouble and we know it is on the wrong side of public opinion when a bill title becomes famous. In the last couple of weeks or couple of months, Bill C-21 has become synonymous with an attack on rural Canadians, indigenous communities and hunters, when the government tried to ban commonly used hunting rifles. Here we are now, with the famous term “C-11”, known by millions of Canadians across the country today as the most blatant attempt by the Liberals and the NDP, and bureaucrats in Ottawa, to have control over what Canadians see and what they search on the Internet.

If that was not convincing enough, Bill C-11 being a household name to millions of Canadians, we know we are in trouble when Conservatives and Margaret Atwood are on the same page, pushing back against the government. She is a wonderful Canadian, one of the most regarded and successful Canadian artists and content creators this country has ever seen. Canadians do not have to take my word for it or believe this side of the bench if they do not want to. Canadians will take Margaret Atwood's word on Canadian culture and content any day of the week over that of the Liberals and the NDP.

I want to give members the dictionary version of what she said. She said some pretty harsh things, calling out the government on Bill C-11. When we break it down and use the dictionary to further define what she is calling out the government for, it is creating a centralized and dictator-like system of control that requires complete subservience to the state.

This is bad legislation. They know it. It has been ping-ponged back and forth between the House of Commons and the Senate. It is back in the House of Commons, and it is going to go back to the Senate. Every time there is a committee hearing, every time there are more witnesses testifying, there are more questions than answers about what the government is doing here with this bill. From consumer groups to legal experts to content creators, many, many groups from every walk of life and every angle on this topic are calling out the government's direction and how bad and how flawed the bill is.

I am proud to stand as a Conservative to say that when we form government, we will repeal Bill C-11. We will kill Bill C-11, as simple as that.

Let us get into the weeds and talk about some of these pieces bit by bit. One of the things we hear the Liberals and the NDP say is that we need to support Canadian content more.

When I think about that, I pull up a list and say, sure, let us support Canadian content, things like Deadpool. It was filmed in Vancouver, starring Canadian actor Ryan Reynolds, with a screenplay by Canadian Paul Wernick, based on a Canadian comic book character.

We have Canadian Bacon. Who could forget that? There is John Candy, a legendary Canadian actor, in a story involving Canada.

I talked about Margaret Atwood. We have The Handmaid's Tale, based on her book. When we look at the production, the series was filmed in Mississauga, Toronto, Brantford, Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville, Cambridge.

I think of Canadian content like All or Nothing, a series on the Toronto Maple Leafs. It is a five-part series that followed the Leafs for months during the 2020-21 season. It is narrated by a Canadian, Will Arnett. It used Canadian crews.

Is this all Canadian content? No, every one of those examples I just cited does not meet the definition and criteria for Canadian content in the definitions that we have.

Bill C-11 is currently 56 pages long, and any Canadian can go online and look at it. They can hit Ctrl+F and search. Nowhere in there does it talk about modernizing and cleaning up that definition. I will argue that this is not about Canadian content, but about something else.

Every time, we put an amendment forward to clarify. If the government wants to debunk a myth and say that what we are saying is not the case, it can clarify it and put in amendments to say what it is not, to exclude certain things. The government refused to do so. It says, “Don't worry. We are not going to determine that. It's going to be the CRTC.”

This brings me to my next point, about another fundamentally flawed part of the legislation. The CRTC is an Ottawa-based acronym. Federal acronyms go left, right and centre around here. It is an agency in Ottawa, and on the Quebec side as well, in the national capital region, full of bureaucrats who, behind closed doors, would not only set the rules for what is Canadian content, but also, through the bill, be directed to start controlling the search results we have on the Internet.

Members heard that right: “behind closed doors”. We have asked repeatedly to put some sunshine, sunlight and transparency on those protocols. There are no criteria in the bill. There is no public formula. There are no clarifications or guardrails on what those protocols are, so for Canadians, when it comes to what they search and what they want to see, whether it is searching on Google, Crave, YouTube or any other platform, as a Canadian here and now, the government will control what goes up in search results and what goes down, and we would not be able to find out the algorithms and calculations it uses, because of CRTC bureaucrats doing it behind closed doors. They never have to share their reasoning, or what I call “showing their homework”. That speaks volumes.

The Prime Minister and the NDP will say not to worry because the CRTC is an arm's-length agency of the federal government. “It is independent,” they say. Let us just debunk that right now. The CRTC reports to the Liberal Minister of Canadian Heritage. Its chair and the commissioners who are working there and leading that organization are appointed directly by the Prime Minister and the Liberal cabinet.

Nobody believes it is arm's-length, and nobody believes the legislation is about Canadian artists and everyday Canadians, because if it were the right thing to do and the popular thing to do, and if there were no problems about it, the government would have made that whole process a lot more public, rather than punting it over behind closed doors.

The bill is not about sunlight. It is not about Canadian artists and content creators. I say the bill is a Trojan horse, because there are some very big cheerleaders for it. The bureaucracy at the CRTC would be exploding in size. The size of the Internet is massive. The amount of content uploaded every single day is huge. It is going to take an administrative swarm of new bureaucrats to go through, and the people who are going to hit the jackpot, the people who are doing cartwheels in downtown Ottawa, are the lobbyists who would be hired by all these groups, associations and artists to try to lobby to get them, when the CRTC goes behind closed doors, to take what is going on.

As I share my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, we will continue the commentary on this and how it works. If someone is a budding content creator in north Winnipeg, a Franco-Ontarian or an indigenous artist in northern Canada, in Nunavut, they can currently upload, and may the best content win. The cream of the crop rises. Canadians will determine what they like and what they want to watch, and that should be the most popular search result. That is the most organic way possible. Trust me, the best way is to let Canadians do their own work and let the organic way go. Good videos go to the top. We have thousands of artists who have made a living by creating content and continue to do so. We do not need to fix what is not broken.

I will wrap up by saying that Bill C-11 is bad. It is online censorship. Ottawa telling 37 million Canadians what they should watch and see is wrong. The Liberals and the NDP have had years to get this right, and now they are just being stubborn.

We oppose this bill now, and as a Conservative government, we would kill Bill C-11.

Firearms

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents.

The first is in regard to firearms and Bill C-21. Petitioners are outraged that the government would rather waste valuable time and resources on confiscating lawfully obtained firearms from citizens who have done no wrong than actually addressing rampant gun violence being committed by criminals and gangs in communities across our country. Canada has a long-standing history of hunting. For centuries, both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians have hunted for sustenance and sport.

Bill C-21 would put unfairly severe restrictions on law-abiding Canadian hunters, and it would put their traditions at risk. My constituents are calling on the government to repeal and withdraw Bill C-21.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Renaud and Ms. Vallée, what I was trying to do earlier, in dissecting amendment G‑4, which sought to amend Bill C‑21, was to read it to you, because I suspect that you do not have it in front of you.

What I have heard from the Quebec hunting community in general is that there is a problem with paragraph (1.2)(g) proposed in amendment G‑4.

Paragraphs (1.2)(e) and (1.2)(f) proposed in this amendment refer to weapons that are already prohibited by the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, as amended in 2020.

Paragraph (1.2)(h) refers to ghost or illegally manufactured firearms. I am sure we all agree that it is important to legislate on this.

As for paragraph (1.2)(i), it refers to the schedule.

If I refer to what Ms. Vallée has just said, ideally, there would be no list of firearms. So it could simply be deleted.

To return to paragraph (1.2)(g) of amendment G‑4, which referred to “une arme à feu qui est un fusil semi-automatique ou un fusil de chasse semi-automatique”, or “a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun”, I believe that it contributed to people's confusion, at least in French. People understood that we wanted to ban “fusils de chasse”, when that was not necessarily the case.

If, in a new definition that the government would propose, we simply removed the reference to “fusil de chasse” in French—I know that it is not the same thing in English—do you think that would help the general understanding of what prohibited firearms are?

[Marc Renaud]

Obviously, we feel it is very important that we be consulted. We will always be concerned about crime, both as individuals and as an association. However, what is the real objective or target of these amendments and Bill C‑21? Clearly, legitimate gun owners are not the target. That is likely not the problem.

Do we need to be more specific? Does the government want to consult us and all the other federations as partners? The Canadian federation includes all of the provincial federations. We want to support the cause and help address crime as much as possible. That being said, part of that is up to police officers, who are also involved in this issue. There is a lot of education that needs to be done among all users, even though one has to wonder whether some of them are actually able to be educated.

In short, we are concerned about this as a federation. That is why we are saying that it is very important to consult hunting communities across Canada.

[Marc Renaud, President, Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs]

Mr. Chair, committee members, I am speaking to you as president of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs. The mission of our not-for-profit organization is to represent hunters and anglers and promote safe practices.

Our educational arm, Sécurité nature, has a contract with the government to deliver introductory hunter education courses and the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. Each year, about 60,000 participants take our training.

Ever since we started teaching firearms safety in 1994, the year the course was created, we have always focused on education and prevention rather than gun control. We are doing our part by going above and beyond our training obligations: We carry out firearms safety awareness campaigns, and we provide hunters with a website about safe firearm transportation and storage, along with other one-off initiatives like distributing trigger locks.

Our overall position on gun control is that there should be limited constraints for legitimate gun owners, hunters or sport shooters who have taken training and who hold a possession and acquisition licence.

During the backlash caused by the amendments proposed in November to Bill C‑21, we identified two key issues. The first is that the amendments, as drafted, were not clear enough. The confusion created by the definition of an assault weapon and the list of prohibited weapons shows that this control measure missed the mark. Law-abiding hunters and sport shooters felt justifiably worried about this ban, which could have captured guns that they had been using for years to carry out safe, legal activities.

The second issue is the public's lack of knowledge about firearms, which colours political decision-making. We see that firearms are being placed on the list of prohibited weapons on the basis of aesthetic and ergonomic criteria, rather than objective criteria based on the firearm's capacity. Also, some people see semi-automatic rifles as military weapons, but this mechanism is necessary for certain types of hunting. Let me remind you that magazine capacity is already regulated. Generally speaking, the limit is five cartridges, and in the specific case of migratory bird hunting, the limit is three cartridges under federal law.

We would like the Canadian regulations to focus on the real criminals instead of criminalizing legitimate gun owners.

First, a definition of assault weapon that's based on objective criteria, not the style of the gun, should be created. If the definition is accepted by the majority of the hunting and sport shooting community, it should then be applied retroactively to all the schedules of prohibited firearms. Then it would finally be possible to stop working off lists that are constantly being updated, creating concern and confusion.

In summary, we strongly believe in the power of education and prevention for promoting firearms safety. Our members want to feel safe, too, and they hope new laws intended to improve public safety focus on the right targets. Hunters and sport shooters who comply with the training requirements and get the right licences are the wrong target.

[Lynda Kiejko, Olympian, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

My name is Lynda Kiejko. I am a two-time Olympian in the sport of pistol shooting. I am also president of the Alberta Handgun Association, which is an organization that fosters and promotes the ISSF, otherwise known as the Olympic style of competition. I come from a family of Olympians and pistol shooting. My father and one of my sisters were both Olympians.

I am very grateful for this opportunity to appear before the committee today. However, I'm also very angry and sad. I'm angry that my tax dollars are being wasted on policy that doesn't increase public safety. I'm angry that no matter how well I follow the law, the law keeps changing. These law changes are impacting me, and people like me, directly.

I take great pride in representing my country on the world stage, as do all athletes. I'm sad that due to the handgun ban, the order in council, Bill C-71 and this proposed legislation, I will not be able to represent Canada on the world stage. Athletes who come after me won't even have an opportunity to compete, as they will have no access to competition firearms.

I am angry this government has no concern for actual safety. If an actual effort were made to increase public safety, I likely would not be here as a witness. If you had the interest of public safety in mind, the measures you take would not affect me, a vetted firearm owner. Your measures would affect criminals. Nothing I see proposed in Bill C-21 or the withdrawn amendments makes measurable improvements to public safety.

Criminals have criminal behaviour. No matter what the law says, criminals will continue doing what they do. Instead of reducing crime, your handgun bans, orders in council and efforts to virtue signal that you're doing something have increased my paperwork by six weeks in order to represent Canada on the world stage. I now pay the government for the privilege of returning home with my guns, which are my property, on every return to Canada. The extra paperwork I do does not make you, my community or my children safer than they were before your measures were put into place. It is a waste of my tax dollars. Instead of preparing to compete against my peers from Ukraine, Greece, South Korea and France—among many others—I'm doing paperwork for the privilege of not being arrested or having my competition equipment confiscated at the border when I return home.

These measures also remove any opportunity I have to take up hunting, which is something my father did, and which is an inherent Canadian tradition. Not only do I need to have my PAL, but I need to take a hunter's safety course and plan out details of where I will hunt. Banning semi-automatic rifles removes this opportunity. Almost all hunters use semi-automatic rifles with the same magazine capacity as my competition handgun. The course that PAL holders are required to take, on top of hunter education courses, makes hunters and competitive shooters safer with firearms than the majority of the population. I am constantly having my background checked as a PAL holder.

I have small children. Firearm safety is very important to me. My firearms are not a public safety threat and neither am I; neither are my teammates, my family or my friends. The measures this government is taking will destroy competitive shooting sports in Canada. There are so many more than just the narrow few who make it to the Olympics. It will destroy our hunting culture, by which we provide for our own families.

As Canadians, we are all proud to see a Canadian competing on the world stage and bringing home a medal. That will end in the shooting sports because of the bans already put in place or currently being proposed. Removing a tool does not decrease violence. My sports equipment and hunting tools are not public safety threats.

Thank you very much.

[Grand Chief Ken Kyikavichik]

The buyback would be in force only for a lot of the rifles that have been prohibited or deemed prohibited under potential legislation and are used for subsistence harvesting by our people. There will be some instances in which individuals are in possession of restricted firearms if the previous Bill C-21 is passed. It is in those instances that we would look at a buyback program.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Okay, thank you.

In your opening remarks, you also mentioned that you would support a buyback program for firearms that become prohibited. Did you mean assault rifles, handguns or both? I know the government has promised to create a buyback program for military-style assault rifles, but nothing's been announced for handguns. Let's not forget that Bill C‑21 was originally about handguns.

Are you envisioning a buyback program that would cover both assault rifles and handguns?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

If there were a similar carve-out or a similar exemption for indigenous communities in Bill C-21, how would you feel about that? Would that be helpful?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

What I'm trying to understand is, given that there was a specific carve-out in the order in council in 2020 that protected the rights of indigenous communities to continue to hunt, would something like that in Bill C-21 not address your concerns, given, hopefully, that there was no impact from 2020?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

What I'm trying to understand, though.... I agree with you. I think it's really important that all of our law enforcement is well aware of the challenges your communities face.

What I'm trying to understand, though, is this. Given that there was the carve-out specifically for indigenous communities in the order in council in 2020, I'm trying to understand what the specific impact, if any, was on your community.

If there wasn't one, the question I would ask is whether a similar carve-out would be helpful to you in any future...in Bill C-21, for example.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I was asking if you agree with the Assembly of First Nations unanimously passing the resolution to oppose Bill C-21?

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for that.

I'd like to go back to Ms. Lazare.

In December, the Assembly of First Nations unanimously passed a resolution to publicly oppose Bill C-21 on the basis that amendments introduced by the government could potentially criminalize long guns or rifles used by first nation peoples in exercising their aboriginal treaty rights to sustenance hunt and harvest.

Do you share these concerns?

[Chief Jessica Lazare]

There was none that I'm aware of right now. I am new to the Iroquois Caucus, so I am still getting briefed on the different files they've taken on. Based on previous discussions, they're not necessarily addressing Bill C-21, and they haven't been addressing Bill C-21 as of yet.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

I'd like to come back to Bill C‑21.

In response to questions from my colleague, Ms. Damoff, you said that not enough was known about the list and that there wasn't enough information. We don't know which firearms you think should be on the list and which should not.

I'm trying to understand something. You're against the bill, which means you're against certain parts of it. I wonder if you could tell us more. Generally speaking, which firearms do your members use for hunting? Are there certain firearms you think should be exempt? How do you see this in general?

I understand that not everyone is happy with this bill, but the whole reason this committee is holding additional meetings is to come up with solutions for improving the process.

I gather that the main message you want to send is that more consultation of all the people affected by Bill C‑21 is needed.

Aside from that, do you have any recommendations for us?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you for that.

I also appreciated your explanation in regard to how the act as proposed in C-21 really doesn't impact public safety. It goes after the wrong issue. It impacts your community as indigenous hunters. It impacts sport shooters, hunters and farmers across the country.

One of the things I have seen recently is that the government in Quebec is spending some money dealing with some of those issues they find to be the real problem, which is smuggling from the U.S. into Canada. They're spending over $6 million over a number of years to try to make that happen. The minister of public safety in Quebec talked about the money that will make that region safer.

We've mentioned a lot in this committee and the House that if we really wanted to impact public safety, we would need to close some of the porousness of our border and provide resources at our border to impact the illegal smuggling of firearms into this country, rather than spending the resources going after law-abiding Canadian firearm owners, including indigenous communities, who are not public safety risks.

How do you see what this Quebec initiative is doing? Do you have any suggestions from your nation for the federal government as to what we need to do to seal up our border to stop the illegal smuggling of firearms into this country? This is a significant problem, as identified by law enforcement across the country.

[Chief Jessica Lazare]

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

I am from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake. I am here to present our position on your proposed bill.

We cannot overemphasize how integral hunting and harvesting is to our identity. Today I will present examples of how this bill will affect our ability to express that.

There are potential repercussions for our rights to carry out a deeply rooted cultural practice that is already restricted within the existing framework. I will also call out the lack of consultation with indigenous communities and the effects of this deficiency in creating your bill.

Harvesting is deeply woven into the Kanien'kehá:ka culture and fabric of who we are. As onkwehonwe, meaning “original people”, we have inherent practices that we have been engaging in since time immemorial. These practices are deeply ingrained in our ceremonies and stem from inherent roles and responsibilities that are integrated into who we are from a generational and family level, from birth.

Six years ago, my son was named in a naming ceremony. His name was raised and words were spoken, letting him know that when the time comes, his uncles will teach him our ways and how to take on our inherent roles and responsibilities. They will take him hunting on the land. He has potential to be a father, to provide for a family and to be supported by the other men in his family to fulfill this role.

In our culture we are taught to balance our roles and responsibilities as humans with those of the other living beings here on mother earth. All this inherent knowledge and understanding is what we carry day to day.

This understanding of our roles and responsibilities, and the respect for the cycle of life, make us who we are as onkwehonwe. This cycle and balance have been interrupted by colonization, which has also established an evolution of our practices from bows and arrows to firearms in order to fulfill our obligations in sustaining that balance.

At the same time, the development of lands has had a cumulative impact on the hunting locations, which are now more isolated, affecting migration paths, which have decreased breeding areas. This development is detrimental to ecosystems.

Losing culture through restrictions of our rights is not just theoretical. This loss has been lived in real time by me and my family, as well as my community and those of my sister communities of the Iroquois Caucus. The restrictions on our rights under the current licensing structure are already unacceptable, and further restrictions could be fatal to our cultural practices.

Urban sprawl and buildup around Kahnawake mean we cannot hunt where we live; nor can we travel with our appropriate firearms to hunt in Tioweró:ton, a hunting territory located in the Laurentians that is shared with Kanehsatà:ke.

We often must drive many hours and take time off work, managing yearly harvests under severe time constraints. This bill and its amendments will further limit the potential for our families to harvest for sustenance during each crucial harvesting cycle. It will impact both our hunting methods and our success rate. When you start to interfere with that success, you interfere with food security and how that person can provide sustenance to their community and family.

In this context, and speaking from experience, I know that the possibility of firing successive shots can make the difference between downing an animal that will feed my family through the winter and injuring an animal that may, at best, take hours to track or, at worst, result in an injured animal dying in the woods, and wasted meat.

We understand that some of the firearm prohibitions and suspensions include a sustenance exception, requiring that firearms remain available to individuals who demonstrate that they need a firearm to hunt. However, we would like to point out that those exceptions fall short in acknowledging and respecting the reality of the people from my community, as well as those from the Iroquois Caucus.

The realities of indigenous people who travel for sustenance harvesting with their firearms are being overlooked due to the lack of consultation. Your government needs to take the time to ensure there is recognition and acknowledgement made to reflect our indigenous rights and realities.

Systemic racism in policing is also an issue for many indigenous communities. Exemptions are accessible only when other law enforcement are properly trained to understand our reality. Impacts of the provincial and federal failure to educate outside police forces are already felt by community members who face problems such as establishing and documenting their rights as sustenance harvesters and transporting firearms for hunting in other parts of Canada.

There is no carve-out in Bill C-21 for the exercise of our inherent jurisdiction rights, nor was any consultation carried out to solicit our input. There is no recognition of the way existing prohibitions and licensing already limit and have adverse impacts on our rights, and no attempt made to help us determine which specifications or models need to be protected, ensuring there is a balance between our safety and sustenance. With this, the Iroquois Caucus requests a meeting with the committee. It is for the Kanien'kehá:ka of Kahnawake, not for Canada, to decide what is fitting for our people.

We have entrusted enforcement to the Kahnawake peacekeepers. I'd also like to point out that this bill will place an administrative burden on our peacekeepers, who already face chronic underfunding, understaffing and intransigence regarding our proposals for culturally appropriate firearm control.

Concurrently, the lack of in-depth and comprehensive consultation with indigenous communities is demonstrated in the incoherence and inconsistency of this bill, the proposed amendments therein and the lack of acknowledgement of the rights of indigenous peoples.

The retracted amendments would have prohibited a broad spectrum of hunting rifles, shotguns and other long guns used by our hunters. Evergreen definitions may not be any better. They will curtail our ability to access new developments in firearms, as other witnesses have already pointed out. Even a cursory review of the retracted amendments reveals important inconsistencies in the firearms selected for inclusion.

You see that when you talk about firearms as objects, you forget that it's the person holding it who makes it either a tool for sustenance or a weapon. We ask that you address the real underlying problems that cause gun violence, not further restrict indigenous people from carrying out their lives in a sustainable, ceremonial and generational way.

Find a way to support firearm safety training. Find a way to support awareness against gun violence and address the mental health issues that lead to gun violence. Help demonstrate that with handling the power of a firearm comes great responsibility.

Niiowén:nake.

[Grand Chief Ken Kyikavichik, Gwich'in Tribal Council]

Drin gwiinzii.

Good afternoon, honourable committee members.

My name is Ken Kyikavichik, and I am the Grand Chief of the Gwich'in Tribal Council of the Northwest Territories. I was elected in September of 2020 for a four-year term, and I am here speaking on behalf of the over 3,500 participants to our Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, a modern treaty that we signed with Canada in April 1992.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee on this very important topic. We, the Gwich'in, are the most northerly first nations people in North America. We are part of the Athapaskans, which include the Slavey, the Tlicho, the Han, the Tutchone, the Apache, the Navajo and other groups in Canada and the United States. The Gwich'in reside in 11 different communities, stretching from the interior of Alaska through northern Yukon and into the Mackenzie Valley of the Northwest Territories of Canada.

For millennia, our Gwich'in Nation has lived a nomadic and subsistence lifestyle, largely following the Porcupine caribou herd. We coexisted with these vital resources by following our values of honour, kindness and laughter; our stories; honesty and fairness; sharing and caring; and, last but certainly not least, respect.

This value of respect is where I'll be focusing my presentation. It is the basis of the perspective of the Gwich'in Tribal Council on the proposed amendments as contemplated through Bill C-21 and the current federal government strategy on firearms.

As we are all acutely aware, successive massacres, including at École Polytechnique in 1989, Concordia University in 1992, Vernon, B.C. in 1996 and, more recently, Mayerthorpe in 2005, Parliament Hill in 2014 and Nova Scotia in 2020, resulted in the tragic loss of officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other Canadian citizens.

It is the individuals who committed these atrocious murders who are to blame for the senseless acts of violence. Mental illness, misogyny and criminal intent were behind these tragedies. However, it was access to some of the firearms specifically mentioned in the draft legislation, such as handguns and automatic assault-style rifles, that should concern us all.

Therefore, we are of the view that the proposed amendments in Bill C-21 do not go far enough in the licence revocations for known or potential assailants through the red and yellow flag laws. Our suggestion would be an automatic 60-day suspension for those with a yellow flag, and a 90-day suspension for those who have been red-flagged. This is particularly important in situations involving domestic violence.

Simply put, the Gwich'in Tribal Council supports the restriction of high-powered automatic assault weapons that are generally utilized in military applications. Far too often, some of these weapons have completely overwhelmed the authorities that we depend upon for our public safety. We cannot allow this to continue to happen. This is the reason I am here to present today.

For our Gwich'in Nation, we need to balance the public interest with the treaty-Crown partnership that was established with our organization to ensure the continued exercise of our harvesting rights throughout our established territory in the Gwich'in settlement region, which totals some 90,000 square kilometres. The essential firearms that we require to exercise our inherent and treaty rights are typically bolt- or lever-action rifles or pump-action shotguns. Rifles such as a .243, .270, .308, .30-30, .30-06 or 6.5-calibre Creedmoor are typically used for larger animals such as caribou, moose or bear, whereas 12-gauge shotguns are generally used for migratory birds such as ducks and geese. Smaller rifles, such as .22-calibre—at times semi-automatic versions—and .410-calibre or 20-gauge shotguns are used for smaller game such as rabbits, muskrats and grouse.

Our people require weapons that are durable enough to withstand our Arctic conditions, and that provide protection from foreign objects such as sand, mud and willows while also being able to be easily transported on snowmobiles or in boats along the expansive river systems of the Nagwichoonjik, or Mackenzie River; the Teetl'it Gwinjik, or Peel River; or the Mackenzie Delta of the Northwest Territories.

SKS and other long-range rifles and semi-automatic shotguns have been listed on the proposed amendments from December 2022. These are common across our communities. Specifically, the Lee-Enfield .303-calibre rifles, which are known as “ranger guns”, have historically been distributed to our participants belonging to the Canadian Rangers. These specific models will require review, as I explained in a call that I participated in with Minister Mendicino on January 31, along with other indigenous leaders from across the Northwest Territories.

If some of these models are listed under this legislation, a practical and proper process for a buyback program would be of interest to our participants and communities, in order to compensate for any loss that may result from the passing of this legislation. We would also be interested in potential exemptions for certain models that are critical to Gwich’in hunting and stewardship, as mentioned earlier.

We do not question the intent of these amendments. However, there's a clear requirement for continued engagement and consultation with indigenous nations such as the Gwich’in, and, more broadly, Canadians at large. People are passionate about this issue because, for many indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, the respectful harvesting of this country's natural resources and the ability to traverse our great lands with pride and safety constitute some of our basic needs and human rights, along with rights enshrined in our treaties or established in common law. There does, however, need to be a proper balance of public safety with our rights to exercise this privilege to coexist in these habitats we all call home.

With that, I'd like to say hai', or thank you, for your time and for the opportunity to present today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 59 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that this meeting is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. I personally am participating today from the traditional unceded territory of the Kwikwetlem First Nation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee resumes its study of the effects of withdrawn amendments G-4 and G-46 to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Today, we have two panels of witnesses. We'll deal with the first one.

In the first hour, with us in person from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, is Chief Jessica Lazare. By video conference we have, from the Gwich'in Tribal Council, Grand Chief Ken Kyikavichik.

I apologize to everyone for mispronouncing names. I'll do my best, but thank you.

Each of you will have up to five minutes to make opening remarks, after which we'll proceed with rounds of questions.

Welcome. I now invite Grand Chief Kyikavichik to make an opening statement. Please go ahead, sir, for five minutes.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

It's serious. The changes we made capture offences involving hunting weapons. There were no changes to offences involving prohibited weapons or organized crime. That message is crystal clear, and with Bill C‑21, we are even increasing maximum sentences for firearms offences involving organized crime. It's only a small number of offences involving hunting weapons.

I think the message is pretty clear. Serious crimes deserve serious consequences, and that option is always available to judges.

Telecommunications Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, it took eight long years for the Liberal government to recognize that cybersecurity threats exist in this country and around the world. Congratulations to them for coming to the party a little late.

The Liberals have now presented a bill to try to address issues of cybersecurity in the country. As I said, it took them eight years to get there, but I have to say I am pleased that the Liberals have decided to finally do something. I look forward to this bill being passed so that it can be extensively studied at committee.

There are some things in this bill that are good. I know praising the Liberal government is strange territory for me, but I will say that the bill would give the government some tools to respond quickly to cyber-threats. There is currently no explicit legislative authority in the Telecommunications Act to ensure that telecom providers are suitably prepared for cyber-attacks. This is a good reason why this bill should probably move forward to committee to be studied.

The challenge I have, though, includes a whole number of things. My issue with the government is trust. While I do want this legislation to go to committee, I have extraordinary concerns about this bill. Many of these concerns have been raised by many groups across the country, and I do want to speak to some of those in the probably somewhat whimsical hope that the government will listen and take some of these amendments seriously.

There has been a very bad track record of the government responding to concerns from the opposition or from outside organizations with respect to legislation. There is a view that the Liberals are going to do what they want to do on pieces of legislation and that they really do not care what other people have to say. I am very concerned that the government is not going to listen to the very serious concerns that have been raised about this bill.

I have my own concerns when I look at how the government has behaved with respect to other pieces of legislation. We have to look at Bill C-11. There has been a multitude of organizations that have said the bill needs further amendment. Margaret Atwood has said that she has grave concerns about the legislation, that she supports the intent but has grave concerns about the implementation and how it is going to affect artists and content creators. We have had folks who compete in the YouTube sphere who have raised all kinds of concerns about Bill C-11, and the government's response has been that it does not care what they have to say, and that it is going forward with the legislation as it is.

The Senate has made a number of amendments to Bill C-11. I suspect the government's attitude is going to be the same, which is that it does not care what the amendments are and that it is going to proceed with the bill as it sees fit.

We also have only to look to Bill C-21 as well. We had the minister clearly not aware of what constituted a hunting rifle and a hunting gun. The Liberals introduced amendments at committee, and it took extraordinary push-back from Canadians from coast to coast to coast to get them to wake up and withdraw those amendments that they had put in at the last minute.

What it speaks to is that, despite having at its disposal the entire apparatus of the Canadian government, the Liberals are still unable to get legislation right. It takes an enormous amount of effort and hue and cry across the country saying that this has to stop and that this has to be changed. If there is not a massive uprising, the government tends not to listen to the legitimate concerns of other constituents or other groups when it introduces legislation.

With that context, it is why I have real concerns that the government is not going to listen to some of the serious concerns that have been raised with respect to Bill C-26. I am going to go through some of those.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has some very serious concerns. It has issued a joint letter that says that the bill is deeply problematic and needs fixing, because it risks undermining our privacy rights and the principles of accountable governance and judicial due process. This is a big bell that is going off, and I hope the government is listening. As I have said, I do not have a lot of faith, given other pieces of legislation where thoughtful amendments have been put forward and the government decided not to do anything with them.

I want to enumerate a few of the concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. On increased surveillance, it says that the bill would allow the federal government “to secretly order telecom providers” to “do anything or refrain from doing anything necessary...to secure the Canadian telecommunications system, including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption”.

That is a pretty broad power. Where is the government putting the guardrails in that would limit the effects of this or protect the privacy rights of Canadians? That is something I think is incredibly concerning.

On the termination of essential services, Bill C-26 would allow the government to bar a person or a company from being able to receive specific services and bar any company from offering these services to others by secret government order.

Where are we going to have the checks and safety checks on this? Unfortunately, I am not in a position where I think I can trust the government to do the right thing on these things. We have seen it through vaccine mandates, in the legislation on Bill C-21 and in how the Liberals are trying to push through Bill C-11 without listening to reasoned amendments. If reasonable concerns are raised about Bill C-26, I just do not have faith the Liberals are going to take those concerns seriously and make the amendments that are necessary. I really hope they do.

On undermining privacy, the bill would provide for the collection of data from designated operators, which would potentially allow the government to obtain identifiable and de-identified personal information and subsequently distribute it to domestic, and perhaps foreign, organizations. When someone takes the de-identified personal information of Canadians and does not say how they are going to deal with it or what protections they have in place to make sure it is not misused, what happens in the event that they take that information and somehow there is a government breach? Where does that information go? These are things I think we should be extraordinarily concerned about.

There was also an analysis provided with respect to this by Christopher Parsons, in a report subtitled “A Critical Analysis of Proposed Amendments in Bill C-26 to the Telecommunications Act”. Parsons raises concerns about vague language. The report notes that key terms in the bill, such as “interference”, “manipulation” and “disruption”, which trigger the government's ability to make orders binding on telecom service providers, are unidentified.

Where are the guardrails in the legislation to prevent government overreach and therefore protect Canadians? This is something that I think all Canadians should be watching and be very concerned about. They should be letting their voices be heard by the government on this.

The report talks about how the minister of industry's scope of power to make orders is also undefined. We would be giving a whole host of undefined powers to the minister and the government that would allow them to have all kinds of sensitive information. These are things that may be necessary, but I do not know. They are highly concerning to me. They should be highly concerning to Canadians, and I hope the government will hear from real experts at committee.

Let us not have a two-day committee study where we think Bill C-26 is perfect as it is and bring it back to the House of Commons, bring in time allocation or closure and pass it through. We have seen that story before, and we do not want to see it with the piece of legislation before us. My really big hope is that the government is going to take the time to really consider the seriousness and breadth of Bill C-26 and make sure we have the ways to protect Canadians.

I just want to add that the Business Council of Canada has released its own letter to the Minister of Public Safety, expressing its incredibly deep concerns with respect to the bill: there is a lack of a risk-based approach, information sharing is one-way and the legal threshold for issuing directions is too low.

There are three reports, right there, that are outlining significant concerns with Bill C-26, and I, for one, just do not believe the government is going to listen or get it right. It does not have the track record of doing so, but I am hoping it will, because cybersecurity is incredibly serious as we move toward a digital economy in so many ways. I really hope the government is going to listen to these things, take them seriously, do the hard work at committee and bring forward whatever amendments need to be brought forward, or, if the amendments are brought forward by the opposition, listen to and implement those amendments.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of trouble putting any confidence in the Liberal government. It took seven years for it to ban Huawei. It is a government that sat on its hands and did nothing about cybersecurity for the past several years. I know this is a government I cannot trust. When I look at Bill C-11, the Liberals are now trying to censor Canadians online. They are trying to control what people see online, which violates charter rights, especially when it comes down to freedom of expression, freedom of association and the ability to actually have discourse online about our political situation in Canada and around the world. When the Liberals try to put veils over certain parts of our information system, I have to be very concerned.

I look at Bill C-21 and how the Liberals have gone after responsible firearms owners like hunters, sport shooters and farmers. To me, that builds no trust in the government to get the job done.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be joining the debate today to offer some of my thoughts and perspective on Bill C-26, a much awaited bill on a cybersecurity infrastructure.

Bill C-26 is a good reminder to members that the Department of Public Safety and its subject matter is so much bigger than just firearms, because, of course, firearms and Bill C-21 have been dominating the news cycle for the last couple of months. That bill, in particular at the public safety committee, has occupied so much time and wasted so many resources. Bill C-26 is a good reminder that with cybersecurity we have so many other agencies that are dedicated to national security under the umbrella of public safety. Cybersecurity is a big subject matter. We also have Bill C-20, which is an important bill on oversight and accountability for both the CBSA and RCMP.

Today, we would not find many members in the House of Commons who are arguing against the need for better cybersecurity. All of the evidence out there points to this being a new and evolving threat. Artificial intelligence systems offer some interesting advantages, but with those advantages come threats and with those threats come actors who are determined to use them in nefarious ways that will harm and have harmed Canada's interests. We need a whole host of options to counter this threat. We need our national security agencies to take these threats with increased importance. We also need legislation to fill in the gaps and make sure that all of Canada's laws are up to date.

I have spent a lot of time on the public safety committee. We did a couple of reports that directly touched on this area. One of our first reports identified violent extremism. Our most recent study looked at the threat posed by Russia. We know that since Russia conducted its invasion of Ukraine, which has recently passed the one-year anniversary, it has also increased the threats that it offers to Canada and to like-minded countries. One of those areas is cybersecurity.

Our committee has not yet tabled its report, which should be tabled in the House of Commons soon so that members of the House and the public can not only see the results of the deliberations, but also see the important recommendations that the committee is going to make. However, we heard a lot of testimony during those committee hearings on the cyber-related threats from Russia. Many witnesses identified that those are among the most serious and relevant for Canada's public safety and national security, particularly in relation to critical infrastructure.

I want to set this table before I get into the nuts and bolts of what Bill C-26 is offering, but also set some of the problems that are in evidence with this first version of the bill.

We have to understand a few basic terms. The Government of Canada refers to critical infrastructure as the “processes, systems, facilities, technologies, networks, assets and services essential to the health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians and the effective functioning of government”, whether that is the federal government, the provincial governments or our municipal governments. Because so many of those pieces of critical infrastructure are now tied into computer systems that are vulnerable to attack, a bill like this becomes quite necessary.

I could go on and on about all of the critical systems in our modern society and the range of sectors, from our energy production to our food distribution systems to our electricity grid and transportation networks and how our ports and our banking system work. If one were to interrupt any one of those services, it could create absolute havoc within any Canadian community or countrywide.

One of the witnesses we had during our public safety meetings on the topic of the threats posed from Russia, and this was just talking about the cyber-threat more broadly, was Jennifer Quaid, Executive Director of the Canadian Cyber Threat Exchange. She reminded our committee that there are nation-states that are conducting espionage and statecraft through the Internet, but there are also criminals who are engaging in cybercrime for financial gain.

In some cases, those criminal groups and the nation-states are working together. There is evidence of this not only in Russia but in places like North Korea and China, where it is almost like the policy that was in place back in the 1700s and 1600s, where privateers would go out and do a nation-state's bidding. In this modern-day version of that policy, there are criminal organizations that are working hand in glove with some nation-states to give them some plausible deniability, but the systems they are using do pose a very real threat to Canada.

One of our key witnesses during the study was Caroline Xavier, Chief of the Communications Security Establishment. She was not able to go into much detail or specifics, given the very sensitive nature of the topic, but she was able to assure the committee that cybercrime is absolutely the most prevalent and most pervasive threat to Canadians and Canadian businesses. She observed that the state-sponsored cyber programs of China, North Korea, Iran and Russia posed the greatest strategic threat to Canada, and that foreign cyber-threat activities have included attempts to target Canadian critical infrastructure operators, as well as their operational and information technology.

Leaving aside the government, it is important for members to realize that most of Canada's critical infrastructure is, by and large, in the hands of the private sector. This is going to underline some of the important elements of Bill C-26.

We also had testimony from David Shipley, Chief Executive Officer of Beauceron Security. He was relaying the same stuff about Russian criminal organizations working in tandem with the government, and saying that criminal gangs have crippled Canadian municipalities. They have gone after health care organizations. The range of malicious cyber-activity has absolutely extended to many small and medium-sized enterprises.

When we look at the reporting requirements of Bill C-26, one of the biggest gaps that we have in our system is the fact that many businesses, private enterprises, are loath to report the fact that their systems have experienced a cyber-attack. They may be threatened to not do so. There is also a very real concern about the institutional harm that could come from the public release of said information. A large corporation that relays to its customers that it has experienced a cyber-attack may find people are loath to do business with it if they are unsure that its systems are up to par.

I also want to highlight a recent example from 2021, where the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador experienced a health records cyber-attack on October 30. The investigation revealed that over 200,000 files were taken that contained confidential patient information.

One can just imagine that in a province the size of Newfoundland and Labrador the fact that over 200,000 files were taken, that is a shocking theft of personal and confidential information. It really underlines just how important addressing this is.

I also want to touch briefly on the topic of artificial intelligence. I want to read a quote from a recent Hill Times article. This is from Jérémie Harris who is one of the co-founders of Gladstone AI, which is an artificial intelligence safety committee. He says:

But perhaps more concerning are the national security implications of these impressive capabilities. ChatGPT has been used to generate highly effective and unprecedented forms of malware, and the technology behind it can be used to power hyperscaled election interference operations and phishing attacks. These applications—and countless other, equally concerning ones also enabled by new advances in AI—would have been the stuff of science fiction just two years ago.

He goes on to say:

...ChatGPT is a harbinger of an era in which AI will be the single most important source of public safety risk facing Canada. As AI advances at a breakneck pace, the destructive footprint of malicious actors who use it will increase just as fast. Likewise, AI accidents—now widely viewed by AI safety specialists as a source of global catastrophic risk—will take more significant and exotic forms.

Something all members of the House really have to be aware of is how, just in the last two years, AI has advanced so quickly. We can think about what AI will be capable of two years or a decade from now. Just as Mr. Harris said, what it is doing right now was inconceivable just two years ago. The fact that AI is now being used to generate unique code for malware indicates there is no telling what it can be used to do and how it could be used to wreak havoc. That underlies just how important this issue is and how seriously we, as parliamentarians, have to take it as we serve our constituents and do the important work of equipping our nation with the tools it needs to keep Canadians, and the critical infrastructure they depend upon, safe.

When I was a member of the public safety committee, I had a chance to speak with Mr. Harris. I actually put a motion on notice that the committee should be undertaking a study on the range of threats posed to Canada's public safety, national security and critical infrastructure, specifically by AI systems. I hope one day the committee can take that study up, but it is a committee with a very heavy workload. It is still trying to find its way through Bill C-21. It is waiting for Bill C-20 to arrive on its door and, of course, this bill, Bill C-26, would also keep committee members quite busy.

I would like now to turn to the specifics of Bill C-26 and what it is attempting to do. It is separated into two main parts. According to the summary of the bill:

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.

There are a number of orders that the Minister of Industry could issue. For example, he or she could prohibit a TSP from using any specified product or service in its networks or facilities; direct a TSP to remove a specified product from its networks or facilities; impose conditions on a TSP’s use of any product or service; subject a TSP’s networks or facilities, as well as its procurement plans for those networks or facilities, to a specified review process. Those are just a few examples of how the minister's orders could be issued. The bill does require the Governor in Council or the Minister of Industry to publish these orders in the Canada Gazette, but there is an allowance in the bill to allow these provisions to be prohibited, so the government can prevent the disclosure of these orders within the Gazette if they feel they need to be kept secret.

Part 2 would enact a brand new statute of Canada, a critical cyber systems protection act, which would “provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety”. In schedule 1 of the government's bill there is a brief list. Vital systems and services can include telecommunication services, interprovincial or international pipelines and power line systems, and nuclear energy systems. Those are a few examples. A really important point is that the Governor in Council, through this bill, would be able to establish classes of operators and require designated operators to establish and implement cybersecurity programs.

This is where the bill would affect the private sector and make sure those cybersecurity programs are in place, especially when that private sector is involved in critical infrastructure. As a brief outline, with those cybersecurity programs, the expected outcomes would be that they could identify and manage any cyber-risk to the organization, including supply chain risks; prevent their critical cyber systems from being compromised; detect cybersecurity incidents; and limit the damage in the event a cybersecurity incident did occur.

I want to talk about concerns with the bill, because there are a lot of concerns. I have had the chance to speak with a number of organizations, but first and foremost was OpenMedia. I had a great conversation with the people there. There is a section on its website that specifically deals with Bill C-26. OpenMedia absolutely realizes that new cybersecurity protections are needed to protect Canada's infrastructure, but it believes they have to be balanced by appropriate safeguards, and this is to prevent their abuse and misuse.

We rely on these essential services, and their protection is important, but Bill C-26, as it is currently written, would give the executive branch huge sweeping powers. In my reading of the bill, there would not be enough accountability and oversight; there would not be enough review mechanisms for Parliament to check the power of the executive, and I think this is a critical point. I think, in principle, we have a good idea with the bill, but a lot of work will be needed at committee to ensure that this executive power would be checked and that it would fit within the parameters of the law. We absolutely must have that kind of parliamentary oversight.

I also know of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which said:

The problems with the Bill lie in the fact that the new and discretionary powers introduced by C-26 are largely unconstrained by safeguards to ensure those powers are used, when necessary, in ways that are proportionate, with due consideration for privacy and other rights. The lack of provisions around accountability and transparency make it all more troubling still.

I think, at this stage, we want to ensure, with the minister's powers to order or direct service providers, and the requirement to comply with these orders, that these powers are being subjected to the appropriate safeguard mechanisms. They are quite broad, as currently written.

In conclusion, I want to see a bill that protects vulnerable groups from cyber-attacks. So many Canadians rely on these critical systems, and we know so many have been targeted and are being targeted as we speak, and we know these dangers are going to multiply and get worse the longer we go on. We want to make sure they are protected, but we want to make sure that we do not have broad unchecked ministerial powers with no public oversight. That is the balance that must be achieved.

I must express, in my closing minute, my personal frustration with how the Liberals draft their bills. The idea behind Bill C-26 is a good one, but the problem with how the Liberals drafted the bill is that it would give huge sweeping amount of power to the executive branch. I just wish they would have had the foresight to understand that, of course, these provisions would be met with opposition. It seems the Liberals are putting the work on committee members to fix the bill for them, rather than having had the foresight and intuition to understand that these are problematic elements of the bill.

I think a lot more work could have been done on the government's side to have presented a better first draft. I guess we have what we have to work with, but a lot of work is going to be needed to be done at committee, and I look forward to seeing members do that work.

I also look forward to voting for the bill at second reading and sending it to committee. I welcome any questions or comments from my colleagues.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the last several months, we have seen accountability raise its head here in Parliament with Bill C-5, Bill C-75 and Bill C-11. Without accountability, it is as though the government does not actually care what we are doing because with a majority government, the NDP and Liberals can make decisions based on what they think is right and there is no accountability.

With Bill C-5, the evidence is not there. Bill C-21, taking legal guns from legal gun owners, is another non-evidence-based process. With Bill C-26, which we are talking about today, it is time that we start building in some processes for accountability so the government is actually accountable for what it is doing.

Criminal Code

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about Bill C-295 and the new offences it would create in cases of neglect of seniors. The neglect of seniors and vulnerable people is a serious problem in Canada, and abuse is endemic.

Ensuring the protection of vulnerable seniors is a very personal matter for me. My grandfather and his companion were defrauded by a caregiver. They were vulnerable seniors who were victimized by an individual who they had every reason to believe they could trust. The circumstances are sadly familiar to thousands of other families who have endured senior abuse. They spent the final months of their lives worrying about money.

My grandfather's companion of nearly 30 years not only endured my grandfather's final months of illness and death, but also feared confrontation with the individual who defrauded them and remained in their neighbourhood. She worried about running into her at the grocery store or other places. My grandfather, who was 90 years old and in ill health at the time, did not live long enough to see justice done.

The police did not treat the case as a priority despite the case being relatively simple and straightforward. There was a poster in the police station that invited members of the public to report situations of abuse. The public communication around this problem is that it is a problem and should be reported to police, yet the police are slow to act and did not act within my grandfather's remaining time alive.

My grandfather was luckier than many. He had the support of family and was not ruined financially by the fraud. The particular fraud was not sophisticated and it was detected. Eventually, charges were laid and an arrest was made. He was not injured in body and was not denied physical care, but he was a vulnerable person like so many other Canadians.

I thank the member for drawing attention to the issue of vulnerable Canadians through this private member's bill. This bill is welcomed.

Sadly, neglect does not only occur in institutional settings, but this bill would address issues where neglect within institutions occurs by making changes to the Criminal Code that would hold operators and managers of such facilities to account when they neglect to provide the necessities of life to people in their care. I think all Canadians would agree that this level of neglect is a criminal matter and ought to be a criminal matter.

This bill would also allow courts to make an order prohibiting persons charged with certain offences from working in proximity to vulnerable Canadians. That is a good step forward as well.

There is so much that could be done. With private member's bills, we are very limited in what we can do with the one chance we get if we draw a low number for Private Members' Business. I certainly do not blame the member for all the things her bill does not do. However, there are many problems that need to be addressed, including fraud, emotional abuse, violence against seniors, abuse, neglect and other harms that occur outside of institutional settings. These are pressing issues the government needs to deal with.

I am disappointed by the government in this case. It has taken a private member's bill to make any headway on this issue, despite the Minister of Justice's own mandate letter, which calls upon him to take action. His mandate letter calls upon him to finalize a proper definition for “elder abuse”. It calls upon him to get better data on this problem and to establish new offences and penalties. He has not done so. This bill from a private member will, but the government, which has said this is a priority, has failed to do so.

The bill would actually fulfill a piece of the Conservative platform that my colleagues and I were elected on, so I certainly support the member in this. It does not matter to me who gets credit in this kind of thing. We want to improve the lives of Canadians, and that is what we can often do in Private Members' Business, so I support her efforts, but I am disappointed in the government for its lack of progress in this area.

We have a minister who was tasked with this, and I wish he had spent more time on protecting vulnerable Canadians than he has on expending enormous effort on Bill C-21, where the Liberals have had to backpedal on those amendments they put forward at committee. There was Bill C-5 that the minister put forward, which would actually weaken penalties and sentencing for violent crimes and other crimes.

Therefore, it is disappointing that we do not have a minister who will take this seriously, but fortunately we do have a private member who is taking a positive step forward.

We know the vulnerabilities of seniors in institutional care, like the vulnerability to neglect. This was all laid bare during the pandemic. We heard other members comment on this. The abandonment of vulnerable seniors, the failure to supply the necessities of life to seniors, is appalling. It was appalling to many Canadians, so action needed to be taken.

It is outrageous, really, that the Canadian Armed Forces would be called in to provide care in seniors facilities. That is not the purpose of our armed forces. That is not something we would normally think of in terms of aid to civilian authority by the Canadian Armed Forces. We are thankful for their ability and the work they did, but what a failure it was, down to an individual level in some cases, and certainly a failure of the management of facilities to ensure that vulnerable Canadians are able to get the necessities of life.

On the data, the minister's own report says there is an enormous gap and a failure to understand the extent and patterns of types of abuse, but Statistics Canada knows a bit about that. It says that between 2014 and 2019 the rate of violence against seniors grew faster than for any other age cohort, so we know that violence against seniors is on the rise. We know that fraud among seniors is on the rise.

I support what this member is doing with her bill. I am glad that this House is now taking time for us to give public voice to the vulnerable and to ensure that, I hope, fewer families and fewer seniors spend their final months as victims of crime. With that, I thank the member for her private member's bill.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

You persist with the definition of what a spokesperson is, and yet you adopt the positions of an association that is against gun control. It is hard to get anything substantial from this and do better next time.

Basically, what we understand from listening to you is that we should take Bill C‑21and the amendments to ban assault weapons and throw it all in the garbage. Nothing good can be done with it.

[Matthew Hipwell, President, Wolverine Supplies, As an Individual]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before all of you regarding Bill C-21 and the amendments G-4 and G-46.

I'd like to go back a little bit in time. I'm an immigrant to Canada. I moved here in early 1982 with my parents and grew up in the Virden area. I've always been a Manitoba resident, primarily in the rural area.

I grew up in a shooting family, a hunting family. That involved competitive pistol shooting at a younger age and all the way through. It has led me to compete and shoot across western Canada. I've represented Manitoba in the sport of biathlon at the Canada Winter Games.

Shooting has always been a part of my life, my family's life, and now my own family's life. Following college, I spent a short stint in the Canadian Armed Forces. Then I spent the first part of my career with the RCMP. I spent 16 years in the RCMP across Manitoba. That included uniform policing and plainclothes policing in the drug unit, where I encountered various firearms in drug-related offences, firearms in different communities, depending on the type of policing work that I came across.

I specialized during my career in the emergency response team. Obviously, that deals with high-risk situations where you're dealing with people who are armed and barricaded and all types of other violent offences, firearms included but not necessarily just firearms.

On the training side, as part of that, I became a use-of-force instructor and a firearms instructor. That led me to teach various police officers across the country in pistol, shotgun and rifle use and patrol carbine use, and I was even a guest instructor at the Canadian Police College on search warrant execution.

Following a transfer and a relocation to western Manitoba, I was approached by my family, my parents, to take over Wolverine Supplies, and that brings me to today. Wolverine Supplies is a rural business. We're located in the country. We're not actually even in the community of Virden itself. We have approximately 18 employees and we service Canadian sport shooters, hunters, and the law enforcement and military market from coast to coast with products to suit their needs.

When we talk about Bill C-21 and the impact on our business, it has not made business a simple process. To go back to the OIC, we had over 15 firearms listed. Then, FRT changes by the RCMP in the months to follow added more firearms to the list. Now, our industry is dealing with the ramifications of Bill C-21, the freeze on handgun transfers, in addition to the amendments that were just recently tabled and then removed.

That doesn't even begin to.... In business, you're dealing with your regular business issues, from supply and demand to product shortages, costs of shipping, overhead, staff—your typical business practices. Now, we're wondering what the government is going to do next. Instead of improving the firearms industry, it seems that we're second-guessing. I don't believe it's doing anything to enhance Canadians' public safety at this time.

The government has increased the uncertainty to the businesses across the country, which are forever wondering if their products will be available to sell to their customers, what will happen next, what will be prohibited, what may not be prohibited, what's changing, and what they do with inventory. There are thousands of dollars.... When you talk about mental health and stress, this is just compounded when all that legitimate firearms businesses and owners are trying to do is follow the laws as they're written today.

In the meantime, we have incidents like the ones we heard of earlier where firearms are being smuggled into the country. Those are the ones primarily being found on the streets, and they are the sources of our crime today.

Thank you very much.

[Kate Nadeau-Mercier, General Manager, Aventure Chasse Pêche]

The way I see it, the hunting and fishing environment in which I work finds itself in a very unusual anxiety-producing climate given the people involved. This community finds itself unjustly targeted, handcuffed and potentially criminalized.

In addition to my role as general manager, and as the host and producer of a television program that has more than 869,000 viewers every week, as well as a hunting and fishing magazine, I head up a community made up exclusively of women, 20,600 women hunters, fishers, gatherers and nature lovers. This gives me an everyday appreciation of the values these mothers share in terms of their gathering activities, and the role they play in the education of our children and the entire community.

I would also like to mention my concerns about the disastrous economic impact of amendments G‑4 and G‑46, and emphasize how important it is to be as careful as possible in the development of new amendments.

Since the early days of Bill C‑21, the industry has been hit hard, and then came the freeze on handguns in October 2022.

The paradox between the government's desire to protect citizens and the measures it is attempting to introduce to get there makes me truly worried for the community of legitimate gun owners. BillC‑21 should be reviewed in its entirety, or voluntarily abandoned and replaced by a new approach.

[Martin Bourget, President, Aventure Chasse Pêche]

My name is Martin Bourget, and I'm the president of Aventure Chasse Pêche. We mainly produce hunting and fishing television programs and a magazine. I'm also a columnist who specializes in that field, particularly on firearms, in which I do technical reviews. I have published hundreds of articles in my career, in audiovisual and print media, for companies like Browning, Mossberg and CANEX, as well as most of the manufacturers in the industry.

Our production work takes us to various sites in the field all over Canada, South Africa, the United States and elsewhere, in city, rural and remote communities, 52 weeks a year, with hunters and fishers who are legitimate firearms owners.

On the subject at hand, we feel that our sampling rate for analyzing more or less what's happening in the field is quite substantial. Our community is confused about all the crime statistics quoted by the authorities, who tell us about the criminal path that weapons lead to and how they end up being used for mischief on the ground. That's what they tell us. Forensic doctors report individual cases of psychological distress, mental disorders and intoxication that will lead to crimes with weapons described by other witnesses as domestic and legitimately-owned weapons.

The government is proposing a definition that is creating an enormous amount of confusion, with amendments G‑4 and G‑46. These two amendments contain arbitrary statements that we believe could in the long run make it difficult to apply and maintain measures that would genuinely protect the streets of Canada against armed criminality, particularly when the source is known. Then there are the lists of weapons, and criteria like barrel length and the number of joules, which create yet more confusion, because there are a lot of inconsistencies.

Legitimate gun owners in Canada are deeply puzzled about the very legitimacy of the process set out in Bill C‑21 and the enforcement of these measures. They are asking for nothing less than a study of the bill's true impact on the safety of Canadians and on traditional hunting and harvesting, and sport shooting.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

My question is for both of you.

Professor Cukier, you brought up indigenous peoples. The 2020 order in council prohibiting assault-style firearms included an exemption for indigenous people exercising their section 35 hunting rights. I'm just wondering if both of you could comment on whether you think it would be a good idea for us to include something similar in Bill C-21.

[Dr. Wendy Cukier, President, Coalition for Gun Control]

Thank you very much.

My apologies. The test went perfectly and the real performance did not.

I represent the Coalition for Gun Control, which, as many of you know, is a network of 200 health care, violence prevention and community organizations that's been working for more than 30 years to advance stronger gun control. I'm also a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, formerly known as Ryerson. I've published a book called The Global Gun Epidemic and a number of articles focused on the public health perspective.

I want to start by saying that in our view, the proposed legislation, Bill C-21, is groundbreaking and addresses gaps in Canadian gun laws. It's an important step in bringing our legislation in line with that of other industrialized countries by reducing the chances that people who are dangerous to themselves or others get access to guns. That's the strengthening of the licensing provisions. It will also stem the proliferation of handguns, which is critically important, and it supports the ban on military-style semi-automatic firearms.

We note that in Canada and around the world, most mass shootings, killings of police officers, domestic violence incidents and suicides are typically done by legal gun owners or with firearms that were at one time legally owned. The question about long guns is important because we see that long guns are typically used to kill women in domestic violence situations and are more common in suicides and certain other kinds of crime. You don't see them as often, for example, in gang-related violence.

The first point I really wanted to make to the committee is that this legislation is critically important. We really feel that most Canadians are expecting it to be passed as quickly as possible. The proposed amendments, which are the focus of the discussion here, are really intended to fill some gaps that were identified in the use of orders in council to prohibit firearms.

I'll reference a report we did that compared legislation around the world. There are three basic approaches to prohibiting military weapons, which most industrialized countries do. I think comparing us to the United States is a mistake. We need to set our standards higher and compare ourselves to Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Most industrialized countries do prohibit military-style semi-automatic firearms.

They do it in one of three ways or in combination. They define specific characteristics—centrefire, accepts a large-capacity magazine or other military characteristics—and/or they define a list of specific makes and models.

The challenge with the first approach is that often the interpretation varies. That's why having the specificity of lists like in the orders in council is helpful. The limitation of relying on orders in council is that manufacturers are very innovative in coming up with new makes and models to circumvent the lists, so some countries use both. That's partly the reason why I believe the amendment was introduced—to help fill some of those gaps.

Some countries also flip this entirely and put the onus on the manufacturers to get approval. They publish lists of guns that are allowed and legal, and anything else is assumed to be illegal until it's formally approved.

We think the proposed amendments are helpful, and we hope the committee will find a way to address the misinformation by making clear that these are not intended to affect firearms that are reasonably used in hunting. In fact, only about 150 of the firearms on the new list are currently unrestricted weapons and likely to be used for hunting.

Also, remember that just because a firearm is used for hunting doesn't make it a hunting firearm. We have lots of evidence over the last 30 years of people saying that a firearm is used for hunting, and then on further investigation it's clear that it has characteristics that would classify it as a military-style firearm.

The final point I want to make is simply that indigenous peoples do have a right to hunt. There are non-derogation clauses, but there may need to be some special considerations with respect to the application of the amendment, as there were with the OICs, and I would ask the committee to make public safety the priority.

It's true that military-style semi-automatic firearms are not often used in crime, but when they are used, the impacts are devastating. Most Canadians, most experts and, in fact, most industrialized countries around the world recognize that these firearms serve no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians.

Thank you.

[Francis Langlois, Professor and Associate Researcher, Observatoire sur les États-Unis of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, As an Individual]

I'd like to thank the committee members for having invited me. I don't know whether the document that contains my recommendations was distributed, but in any event, I will now present them to the committee.

I have two recommendations to make. The classification of firearms needs to be changed to avoid semantic debates over whether a gun is an assault weapon or a hunting gun.

To accomplish that, I am proposing a new way to classify firearms based on how they are handled, by which I mean how they are held, and on the type of firing mechanism. I assume that I could go into details about this classification a little later.

I propose broadening the definition of a firearm to prevent the proliferation of ghost weapons. At the moment, weapons are identified by a serial number on the gun stock. Unfortunately, that component of the firearm is relatively easy to print or engrave. If the definition of a "firearm" is extended to other components of the weapon, like the breech or the barrel, then it would be possible to limit the spread of ghost weapons, particularly those from the Polymer 80 company, which are widely sold in the United States.

That's what I'd like to present this morning. I also have pictures for those who might be interested. Essentially, my intent here is to present the committee with a new way of classifying firearms. That gets me back to my first point. This classification is based on two criteria.

The first is handling. If a firearm is held with one hand, or with two hands on the stock in the same location, we are talking about a handgun. If a weapon he is held with two hands, one holding the stock and the other generally placed on the forward portion of the weapon to stabilize it, it's a long gun. That's the first way to classify them.

The second criterion is the firing mechanism.

Some weapons have a manual reloading mechanism. With long guns, this could be either lever action or pump action. For revolvers, it's a cylinder activated by the user.

Other weapons have an automatic reloading system. In weapons like these, the firing cycle occurs automatically for as long as you hold the trigger down, or semi-automatically, every time you pull the trigger.

If firearms were classified in this manner, the act would firstly be more consistent, and secondly, would avoid semantic debates of the kind we've heard in recent weeks, and which have undermined Bill C‑21.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 58 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee is resuming its study of the effects of withdrawn amendments G-4 and G-46 to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Before we proceed, I would like to remind all members of the confidentiality of our working documents, such as notices of motions, briefing notes, working plans and witness lists. According to the rules of the House of Commons, a breach of the confidentiality of our proceedings could be considered a breach of parliamentary privilege by the committee. I thank everyone for their co-operation.

Before we go to our witness panels, we will segue into some other business as we wait for some technical difficulties to be ironed out.

We have undertaken a report, which we collectively call “the Russia study”. We have examined it, and I believe we're ready to approve it. There are five questions for the committee to respond to.

I will ask the committee whether the draft report, as amended, shall be adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

Shall the report be entitled “Strengthening Canada's Security Posture in Relation to Russia”?

Public Safety

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition in which the petitioners oppose Bill C-21 and are asking for it to be repealed because it would do nothing to prevent gun smuggling or crimes involving firearms.

[Mark Ryckman]

That's a great question.

Without going into a huge summary of our submission, there were some concerns about Bill C-21—for instance, impacts on people having their firearms taken away through the red and yellow flag laws without a proper hearing or without notice. It was not necessarily anything that couldn't be assuaged through amendments.

I will also say, though, that the amendments I'm here to talk about today are clearly an impact on the hunting community, and that is our mandate. Part of our mandate is to promote hunting in Ontario and to do what we can to protect that heritage. A lot of the content of Bill C-21 itself lies outside of our charitable mandate. While we may have some concerns, there isn't a whole lot of lobbying that we would necessarily do on some of those provisions.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go to you, Mr. Ryckman.

Just so I understand where your organization was prior to the amendments being tabled, what was the position of your organization on Bill C-21?

[Mark Ryckman]

Yes, absolutely. It's been mentioned a couple of times already, in that not only was there some disinformation but there was some misinformation. There was simply a lack of clarity, and the responsibility for that lies mostly on the government for the way it was introduced.

You're absolutely right, in that the OFAH did not provide comment on Bill C-21 originally. Even if we had, we would not have been speaking about the amendments because they didn't exist at the time. We would have been speaking about the content of the bill in front of us, which was entirely different from what I'm here to talk about today.

Uncertainty is absolutely a driver of concern. It's not just uncertainty about how to interpret some of these provisions that are being proposed, but uncertainty about whether or not the RCMP was going to be knocking on somebody's door and taking their gun, or whether they were going to be properly compensated for property they legally owned the day before.

You're correct, and I would agree that confusion drives some of that concern—absolutely. We made a concerted effort to get as much information as possible from Public Safety and the government, and we put that out there.

I will say before I finish that you're welcome for all of those emails. We did not create this issue. We did not create the anger and the distrust in the hunting community. The process did, and the content of the amendments did. We simply gave people a very straightforward and easy way to contact their members of Parliament.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

We'd love to have you elaborate on that, but I want to move on. I want to just point out the CMA policy statement on gun violence, where they point out through international review that civilian access to firearms with rapid-fire capability does result, or appears to result, in an increased incidence of mass shootings. It's really to point out the overall correlation between poor control availability of firearms and mass shootings, which is I know one of the intents of this Bill C-21.

I want to quickly turn back to Dr. Ryckman.

Dr. Ryckman, you've written quite eloquently. I've read some of what you've written on your website about trying to find common ground, so maybe in an attempt to find some common ground here, I'm sure you're aware of many of the concerns expressed from my constituents in the Yukon. I haven't yet met anyone in the Yukon who does not deplore gun violence. I also want to commend what I just heard in the previous hour in the testimony of the witness from PolySeSouvient: a powerful testament to the value of hunting.

I see that there is a possibility to converge on some common ground. Do you see gun violence in Canada as a urban issue, a rural issue or both or neither?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

We received a detailed explanation, which is very short.

At a committee meeting, we heard from some officials and we asked them to provide us with an explanation in writing of the proposed amendments.

It's fairly easy to understand, but we had a lot of trouble understanding the explanation, which is still not entirely clear.

It's interesting to see that Schedule 1 to amendment G‑46 deals with firearms that have been banned since the 1990s, since the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2020).

Then, in Schedule 2 to amendment G‑46, the focus is on paragraphs 97 to 232, which deal with firearms that would be banned by adding these amendments. It talked about approximately 480 makes and models of firearms that are currently not banned, which added only a small number.

I agree with my colleagues about the enormous amount of disinformation that has circulated. For example, if you pressed Ctrl+F to do a search in the document and came to a model, you immediately got the impression it was banned, when it was talking about a model with a totally different power. On top of that, if you had not read the introductory paragraph first, you missed the information that said "with the exception of these models". That created a huge amount of confusion.

To try to unravel it all, I tried to see what is being done elsewhere. Sometimes, it's a good idea to compare ourselves to other countries to see what they have done and how they went about things.

The analysts at the committee and the library were kind enough to quickly prepare a little document for me.

I'm going to give you the example of New Zealand.

The way New Zealand went about it is fairly similar to what the government proposed with amendments G‑4 and G‑46 to Bill C‑21. However, one passage particularly caught my attention, in which it says that the bill was also intended to preserve access to lower-capacity semi-automatic firearms recognized as being used by hunters and farmers.

We see that New Zealand went about this in a similar way, but paying attention to farmers, hunters and maybe even indigenous people, who use certain models.

We understand that the government is going to start over from zero with its examination of the issue and is going to try to propose something.

In this new proposal, do you think the government should give the same attention to hunters, farmers and indigenous people as New Zealand does?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

I have invited the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs myself to testify a little later, in the next few days, but I'm very pleased we are hearing from the Ontario federation. I'm sure you speak to each other and you have substantially the same positions, but it is still interesting to hear your views.

If we scroll through your website a bit, we see that there was a call to action concerning Bill C‑21. You described the reasons why you disagreed with the amendments proposed by the government. You said you were worried about the impact they would have on hunters, because many of these firearms were used by hunters in Canada.

I'm going to reiterate what my colleague Ms. Damoff said before me. Obviously, you are talking about the SKS, which we have heard a lot about.

You say that many of the firearms in question are used by hunters. Can you give us examples of firearms that are commonly used for hunting that appear on this list? Have your members let you know what firearm they use that is on the list, for example?

[Dr. Caillin Langmann, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Thank you for letting me present my research regarding Canadian firearms legislation and its association with homicide, spousal homicide, mass homicide and suicide in Canada.

I am an assistant clinical professor of medicine and an emergency physician in Ontario. I serve as an academic peer reviewer in the areas of firearm control, homicide, suicide, violence and gang deterrence for academic journals. I have four peer-reviewed publications on legislation and the effects on homicide and suicide in Canada.

In 2022 I presented and submitted studies and a report regarding Bill C-21 to the committee. The research demonstrated that previous bans in the 1990s of a large number of handguns had no effect on homicide rates.

Currently a definition of “assault rifles” and subsequent bans has been proposed. My research on previous Canadian legislation is applicable in answering the question of what the effects of this legislation may be. Since 2003 the number of owned restricted firearms has doubled from 572,000 to 1.2 million; however, the rate of overall firearms homicide has not increased, nor has the rate of homicide by handguns. There have been recent fluctuations, similar to levels in the early 2000s, but the rate of homicide has actually fluctuated about a steady mean when statistical analysis is performed.

In the 1990s, legislation prohibited over 550,000 firearms, including military-style firearms and handguns. However, my studies have demonstrated that there was no statistically significant benefit on homicide, spousal homicide or mass homicide rates in Canada. Restrictions of magazine capacity in 1994 were not associated with decreases in homicide or mass homicide rates. Prohibition of fully automatic firearms in the late 1970s was also not associated with decreases in homicide or mass homicide rates.

Other jurisdictions such as Australia and England have also applied significant controls to handguns and semi-automatic rifles, and in multiple studies no statistically significant changes in homicide rates were detected. Studies from the United States examining assault weapon bans have also revealed no significant benefit. Blau et al. and Siegel et al. found that these legislations were not associated with a decrease in victims.

Interestingly, when looking at 30 years of incidents, Blau found that shotguns were more associated with an increase in victims than semi-automatic rifles. Webster et al., using similar quasi-experimental methodology as I, did not find an association between assault weapon bans and public mass homicide incidents or deaths.

In summary, the evidence so far demonstrates that the proposed handgun and semi-automatic rifle bans would have no associated reduction in homicide rates or mass homicide rates. Methods that have been shown to be more effective in reducing firearms homicides involve targeting the demand side of the firearms prevalence in criminal activity. As demonstrated by StatsCan, a significant percentage of firearms homicide involves gang violence.

To reduce the violence that is currently occurring in Canada's cities, the evidence suggests that you need to act early to reduce youth gang involvement. A research report by Public Safety Canada in 2012 gathered evidence from programs operating in Canada to reduce the gang participation rate and demonstrated beneficial effects in the range of a 50% reduction in participation.

Targeting legal firearms owners, who rarely commit crimes, with new legislation already shown to have no significant statistical benefit will not change Canada's death rates by firearms. The likely billions of dollars forecasted to be spent on confiscating firearms would be better spent on youth diversion and gang reduction programs.

Thank you.

[Mark Ryckman, Manager of Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. On behalf of the OFAH, thank you for the invitation to appear at this committee.

The OFAH is the largest non-profit, conservation-based fish and wildlife organization in Ontario, with 100,000 members, supporters and subscribers and 725 member clubs, with 55 of those clubs operating 122 CFO-approved licensed ranges. Our organization is 95 years old so we have a long history of advocating for the hunting community in Ontario.

While there are provisions in Bill C-21 we have concerns about, I will keep my comments scoped to the impact of the amendments G-4 and G-46 on the hunting community.

Hunting is an ancient tradition passed down through generations and remains a way of life for many indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. Hunting today makes important social, cultural and economic contributions to our country. It remains an important way to put food on the table, connect to nature, create and foster relationships, relax in the outdoors and contribute to the conservation movement. Indeed, some take offence when hunting is referred to as a sport or hobby, because it is so much more than that.

Hunting isn't just for rural Canadians. Hunters come from urban, suburban and rural Canada. They are judges, lawyers, teachers, dentists, plumbers, mechanics and even politicians. Hunting provides information and funding for wildlife management, can help control populations and address human-wildlife conflict, and can foster a sense of obligation to give back to nature with conservation activities.

In 2018, hunting spending totalled $5.9 billion and the resulting contribution to Canada's GDP was $4.1 billion. Hunting supported 33,000 jobs and generated almost $2 billion in labour income. The importance of our hunting heritage is even recognized in federal legislation.

There is no such thing as a hunting firearm type. Firearms primarily used for hunting are also frequently used for plinking, shooting at the range or even competition. There are no hard line thresholds for labelling firearms as hunting or non-hunting, particularly when only looking at the appearance or overall design of the firearm itself. It requires the comprehensive examination of multiple features and functions of a firearm, like the action and calibre, but will also be influenced by non-firearm considerations like the cartridge, the user, environment, target species and jurisdiction.

We are pleased that the amendments have been withdrawn and I applaud this committee for studying their impact. In addition to the nature of the amendments, we were also troubled by their unexpected introduction and the lack of consultation. In proposing amendment G-4, the government jumped directly to prohibition, skipping over less extreme alternatives that would have helped achieve its goal without the infringement on hunters and other legal gun owners.

A stepwise and adaptive approach creates better policy and is much fairer for Canadians than the unnecessarily blunt prohibition of guns by make and model. Take the attachable magazines as an example. The Criminal Code already prohibits the possession of any magazine that holds more than five shots for a semi-automatic centrefire long gun. If it can hold more than five rounds, it must be pinned so that it can't.

Bill C-21 proposes to go further and make unpinning a specific offence as opposed to a lesser included offence. We had a proposed new offence that hasn't even been enacted yet, let alone being given a chance to work, when the amendments were introduced. Even if the government felt compelled to go further, they could take targeted measures like banning the import and sale of new magazines that have the potential to exceed five rounds.

Our opposition to the amendments is not partisan or emotional or predetermined on principle. It was only after a thorough, critical analysis that we arrived at this conclusion. It won't enhance public safety. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

Firearms are not the disease, particularly in a nation like Canada with robust gun laws. Gun violence is often symptomatic of much bigger societal issues. Taking firearms away from law-abiding Canadians will not reduce the upstream issues that fuel criminal activity and the demand for illicit firearms. Therefore, model-based firearm prohibitions will continue to fail as they won't be able to have a detectable impact on reducing gun violence or enhancing public safety.

If political discourse remains fixated on finding the firearms that should be banned or saved, then we will continue to underinvest in the resources and time we need to address the critical issues we have.

Thank you.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to what my colleague Ms. Bendayan was saying. I thank her for her kind words.

To be honest with her, if my colleague wants the NDP or the Bloc Québécois to support what the government is going to present, it would have to present something else. At the moment, we are taking four meetings to hear the witnesses again, and that leaves very little time for the government to rework anything. I am concerned about that, even if our intention is the same, that being to ban assault weapons.

Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost, you certainly recall that when you testified the first time, I told you that if the government did not keep its promise, the Bloc Québécois would do it by introducing an amendment to ban assault weapons.

I consulted legislative counsel and she told me that it would be out of order because it went beyond the scope of Bill C‑21, that the bill dealt with handguns, and that it would be extremely surprising if the chair of the committee brought it forward. Ultimately, the chair did bring it forward. My amendment was rejected, but there was the Liberals' amendment.

This is all to say that I believe that behind the fact that the government has withdrawn its amendments there is a fear that the Speaker of the House of Commons would then decide that the amendments were out of order. That fear is still present.

How should we do this, do you think?

Should the government propose something different in a bill separate from Bill C‑21? Should it do it directly in Bill C‑21?

You talked about a definition, and I agree that we should have a good definition that includes weapons before, during and after.

We should therefore not do it by using a list. The lists that were in the orders in council showed that there were holes and that it didn't work. The definition should therefore take in all of the weapons, including future weapons.

What do you propose? What should the government do, going forward, considering that the committee only has a few weeks before resuming clause by clause study of the bill?

[Nathalie Provost]

Preparing, tabling, analyzing and studying a bill is a lengthy and painstaking process. At present, we can't take advantage of the favourable circumstances brought about by Bill C‑21.

We have appeared before the committee on several occasions, and we are well aware that the process is very lengthy. If we let the opportunity to propose a definition pass by, we don't know whether we are going to be able to do it later or whether there will also be the political will to do it.

We think it is essential that all parties who agree that assault weapons must be banned in Canada get to work.

As well, I think it is essential that we concentrate on the facts, the data, and the objective analysis of an amendment. It has to be a strong amendment.

My grandfather and my uncles are hunters. Personally, I don't live in a rural area, but that is where I come from, and I recognize the importance of hunting for some Canadians, for communities, and for the First Nations of Canada. It is part of our history and our foundations.

PolySeSouvient has never called for an end to hunting or a ban on all firearms. What we want is to find a way to clearly define what an assault weapon is, based on firm, scientific criteria. That is how to ensure that this type of weapon will no longer be in the hands of Canadians. There is certainly a rational approach that is not based on emotions, that would allow hunters to feel respected and all Canadians, who want to live in a safe country, to have the protection of a firearms law that respects that fundamental need.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses.

It is a pleasure to see you again, Mr. Benabdallah. Thank you for the warm welcome you gave me at the mosque in Quebec City two weeks ago, at the commemoration of the attack.

Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost, from PolySeSouvient, we have been talking since the meeting started about a fact that you actually referred to in your opening statement: that several parties have committed to prohibiting assault weapons in the past.

It's a pleasure to see Mr. Julian and Ms. Michaud asking excellent questions during this committee meeting.

Personally, I'm very hopeful. I am a fighter, but I am also someone who thinks we can change the world.

I am pleased and truly relieved to have heard the leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, say in an interview yesterday outside the House that he was in favour of the amendments that would incorporate a definition of prohibited assault-style weapons into Bill C‑21.

More specifically, I thought it very important that Mr. Singh said he was [Translation] "always open to finding ways to have amendments that really will protect the community and respond to the needs and concerns of organizations like PolySeSouvient."

Ms. Rathjen and Ms. Provost, what message do you want to send the three progressive parties that share this intention and conviction?

What's the rush?

Why do we have to do this by proposing amendments to Bill C‑21?

[Jim Shockey]

On the first part of your question, the feeling or the sense from hunters, we feel fear that we're being attacked. As I said earlier, we feel vilified, marginalized. We feel that we're not respected, and there's a measure of distrust.

I keep hearing “weapon, weapon, weapon”. I don't have a weapon. That's a subjective opinion based on every situation where a firearm is used. I don't have a weapon, but I keep hearing that I have these weapons. I don't.

I keep hearing that they are firearms for military purposes. My classic English double rifle, break action, two bullets in, close it up, shoot it, Turkish walnut engraved, is worth $90,000. It's on this list. It's going to be prohibited. It has never been used in any type of a crime and certainly not in any military application.

As a hunter, I hear this—I'm listening—and I appreciate the emotions involved. It's a terrible tragedy. That can never be understated. On the other hand, like I said earlier, a way of life is also important to many people, especially us. I feel like, from The Hunger Games, I'm from District 12. I'm a tribute and you guys are the Capitols. You don't understand us.

In the communities in the north, if there is a ban or there is a protest against coming to Canada—a boycott—it would be catastrophic. Where will the money come from to these communities—from tourism? That's not realistic. It doesn't happen in most remote communities. Most of the money that comes into the communities from outside sources is from hunting and outfitting—the jobs that are there. Our television show on the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, Yukon Harvest, has all first nations people and Métis.

Like I say, a boycott would be catastrophic. That's just the passing of Bill C-21 and not getting into the individual amendments and whatnot. You cannot underestimate the effect and the lives it would cost. They are already struggling in these communities, and to throw this on top of it...?

It's well intentioned, but I have a feeling that there are going to be unintended consequences because of it.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. We are very grateful for their willingness to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Here you are again, even though you've already said several times just how important it is to legislate on firearms in general, and on handguns and assault weapons in particular

You're here once again because I suggested to my committee colleagues that we should rehear witnesses following the introduction of the amendments tabled by the government in its firearms legislation.

The committee was not necessarily making any progress after these amendments were tabled, because they had changed the bill in all kinds of ways. As you know, at the outset, Bill C‑21 had mainly been about handguns. The government proposed new amendments in November, after the bill had been tabled in May, with substantial amendments applicable to assault weapons added on.

You are in favour of a ban on assault weapons. So is the Bloc Québecois, and we've said so repeatedly. But here we are in what amounts to a deadlock. That's why we proposed hearing other witnesses. In the meantime, the government withdrew amendments G‑4 and G‑46 a few days ago, saying that it had not sufficiently consulted the groups involved and the population.

My understanding is that when the bill was tabled, there was media coverage. The government appeared to have promised certain groups that it would include the assault weapons ban in the act. The government had approximately five months to put together a well-structured bill, but unfortunately, that's not what we got in the end.

I have a question for the witnesses from PolySeSouvient, and then for Mr. Benabdallah.

Given that the government had promised to prohibit assault weapons, do you see the withdrawal of amendments G‑4 and G‑6 as a broken promise?

[Jim Shockey, Guide Outfitter, As an Individual]

I was introduced as a guide outfitter, but in fact I'm a hunter.

To give you an idea of where I sit in the hunting world, I was given the Professional Hunter of the Year award in 2009, the International Hunter of the Year and World Conservation and Hunting awards in 2012, the Conklin award in 2016 for highest standards and ethical fair chase, and the Ovis award for fair chase and total integrity in 2018. I was also the winner of the Weatherby award in 2018, and I'm only the second Canadian in seven years to be given that award. I'm a hunter.

I've also produced over 500 episodes of outdoor television and work closely with first nations and Inuit communities in the north. I've written over a thousand articles and outdoor publications. On a personal note, I've been married for 38 years to my soulmate, and I have two children and four grandchildren. Most importantly for this committee, I have a great and growing concern for the public safety of my family, here in Canada, and for that of my fellow Canadians.

However, speaking as a hunter, I want to make it clear to this committee that, although people like me live the field-to-table lifestyle—we go into the field and hunt what we eat—we're not your enemy. Hunters are not the enemy, in this case, and our firearms are not a threat to the security of Canada and safety of Canadians.

I'll address some of the Bill C‑21 issues that concern us, as hunters.

Are semi-automatic rifles popular? Yes, they are. They're commonly used for hunting many different species of animals, in many different conditions. To get a hunting licence, hunters have to pass tests and be vetted. They're the best at knowing the proper firearm to use. I don't use a weapon, because that's not what these are. I don't think they qualify as weapons in the Canadian Criminal Code. You can confirm that. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are commonly used.

Most of the outfitting I look after takes place in remote communities—mostly indigenous first nations or Inuit territories. The economic benefits from hunters who come in, mostly from the States.... Often, they use their semi-automatic firearms. My fear is that, if Bill C-21 goes through, you're going to see a boycott from down south. That will have a catastrophic effect on these remote communities, which require this input of foreign American dollars.

By the way, the meat from the animals taken in these communities goes to those communities—to the elders. In Rogue River outfitting territory, we donate several tons of meat to elders who can't go hunting. We provide them with traditional pieces of the animals—the nose, the caul fat, pieces they can't get yet rely on.

There are dangerous animals and other reasons why semi-automatic guns are the best defence. The Yukon government actually for AR‑10s.... I think that's what they're called. I'm a hunter, not a gun guy, but I think they selected those for their conservation officers, after studies proved they were the best to use. They are in dangerous situations.

I don't want to take up a pile of your time. Again, I'm a hunter and obviously out of place among all of you here. Those are not elephant tusks, on that side, by the way. Those are woolly mammoth tusks. You mentioned respect for hunters. I think that's important. Everybody understands hunters are not a threat to your safety or the national security of this country. However, we feel vilified and marginalized. Recently, we've felt attacked. We're not the enemy. We love our country. The taking away of life is obviously a terrible and fundamentally wrong thing, but the taking away of a way of life is also wrong.

I'll go back to respect for hunters. I'm here because I would like respect. I'm speaking for hunters across Canada. We just feel like we've been turned into criminals with this. I think there are some serious flaws in Bill C-21. I recognize and I appreciate what the previous speakers have said, but there are some untruths in this.

[Heidi Rathjen, Coordinator, PolySeSouvient]

Good afternoon.

Our hope today is that these special consultations will, first and foremost, seek to clarify the true impacts of amendments G-4 and G-46, since any new amendments should be based on real and legitimate concerns.

While we are open to the possibility that the proposed amendments may have included legitimate hunting rifles, we have not seen any evidence of this as of yet. On the contrary, a detailed analysis of the claims made by one of the loudest gun lobby groups—an analysis that has been validated by the RCMP—shows that all of their claims about hunting rifles being banned are either false or misleading.

Indeed, of all the models they showcased in their memes, videos and posters, only one would be affected by an amended Bill C-21, and that is the SKS, which is clearly a military weapon. It was exempted from the 2020 orders in council because it was not of a modern design.

For all of the other models that you have seen on social media and in videos, etc., their classification would not change. That's because amendment G-46 incorporated the 2020 orders in council, including variants, for greater clarity, meaning models whose military calibre versions have been prohibited for almost three years now, and whose hunting calibre versions continue to be used for hunting and will remain legal and non-restricted. Government experts have testified before this committee to that effect and, as I said, our assessment has been validated by the RCMP.

We believe that such widespread misinformation has provoked massive and unfounded fear among hunters, who then inundated members of Parliament with emails, calls and letters. We believe this has likely led to the withdrawal of these amendments. I hope this committee will seek to debunk this disinformation to the benefit of all.

That being said, we recognize that a key challenge is the lack of clarity surrounding these amendments. The legislative proposals were particularly difficult to understand. Many believe that if a model is listed in amendment G-46, it means that all versions would be prohibited, even though government officials have testified to the contrary. We, therefore, fully support reviewing the language in both amendments to make it simpler and easier to understand.

We also remain convinced that the intent of the amendments was not to prohibit firearms reasonably used for hunting. We have publicly supported the idea of exempting specific models if some fell on the wrong side of that line. However, it should be noted that just because a gun is used by some for hunting, that does not make it a hunting firearm. As a case in point, the gun lobby considers the AR-15 and even handguns firearms fit for hunting. That is why the expression, “reasonably used” is key, and why it also exists in the Criminal Code.

We recognize that specific issues related to indigenous people's hunting rights must be addressed—

[Nathalie Provost, Spokesperson, PolySeSouvient]

Good afternoon, and thank you Mr. Chair.

In 1991 and 1995, the Conservative and Liberal governments, respectively, banned a list of assault weapons. However, owing to the absence of a comprehensive evergreen definition in the act, new models of assault weapons began to flood into the Canadian market.

Please listen carefully. Without a definition in the act, manufacturers will continue to produce new models, and backsliding would be much easier for a government that did not share the same public safety values. What we want is something permanent. We're tired of repeatedly reliving this ordeal.

Since 2015, the Liberal Party has been elected three times, having promised to prohibit assault weapons. The Bloc and the NDP shared this commitment, but progress has been slow. It's only now, in its third term, that the government is attempting to keep its promise. Amendments G‑4 and G‑46 in Bill C‑21 have kept Canada from coming even close to a complete and permanent ban on assault weapons.

I'd like to remind you that this measure is the first demand by the students of Polytechnique Montréal and victims' families since January 1990. Heidi and I were at the first press conference when the initial demand was made. We supported the government's overall strategy announced in May 2022, because it included the compulsory buyback, the promise of a permanent ban and a tightening up of the regulatory framework for high-capacity magazines.

We have had the full support of the Bloc Québecois since 1990, and we now understand that the leader of the NDP has also supported what we've been asking for. Please, in committee, we are asking you to respond to Canadians demanding a ban on assault weapons, to rework the withdrawn amendments in a way that would enable Canadians to actually understand them and the impact they would have. New clear and improved amendments, if they are developed around sound, scientific, rational and accurate fact-based information, could be adopted. That's what we really want.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 57 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We'll start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee has commenced its study on the effects of the withdrawn amendments G-4 and G-46 to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

Today we have two panels of witnesses. We'll delve into the first one right now.

In the first hour, we have the Centre culturel islamique de Québec and PolySeSouvient. Also, as an individual, we have Mr. Jim Shockey, who is a guide and outfitter. Each witness group has five minutes for a statement.

I understand that Centre culturel islamique and PolySeSouvient will share their time. You'll have 10 minutes among the group of you. I'll let you allocate that as you please, and we'll drop the hammer at 10 minutes. We'll start with you, and then we'll go to Mr. Shockey later.

Go ahead, please, for 10 minutes.

Firearms

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents, in particular law-abiding firearms owners. There are two aspects to the petition. The petitioners are calling on the government to drop the last-minute amendments to Bill C-21, which I note has occurred, and in particular to focus on criminals and not law-abiding firearms owners.

The petitioners emphasize the requirement for the government to use its own data, in particular Public Safety's commissioned report done a few years back by Hill+Knowlton. It points out that over 100,000 Canadians oppose a firearms ban in this country.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to stand up for law-abiding firearms owners, sport shooters and farmers with gun legislation, quit targeting them and go after criminals instead.

Criminal Code

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House. Of course, speaking on issues as weighty as medical assistance in dying, these are perhaps some of the most difficult things we will speak of in the House. I note that this is going to be an issue I am sure we will face in the chamber over the next several months, and perhaps again, as the bill comes to pass.

Today we are talking about mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition for Canadians to access medical assistance in dying. The bill is presenting legislation for a one-year delay. Why is the government asking for a one-year delay? Certainly, this is about the concerns Canadians have across this great country with respect to the presentation of the government.

Perhaps, it will be similar to Bill C-21, when the issues Canadians had were brought forward by the Conservatives, and the Liberals had to change position on that bill. We know that there are mental health advocates who have significant concerns about the bill, such as the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry, which brought forth issues related to mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition.

One of the things that is germane is to help people understand what it is we were studying at the joint committee on medical assistance in dying. We were talking about mature minors. We were talking about advance requests. We were talking about Canadians with disabilities. We were talking about the state of palliative care in Canada, and we were talking about Canadians who suffer with a mental disorder. When we looked at these particular topics, there were many contentious issues, and it became heated and personal at times, which was perhaps as it should be.

For comparison, I think we need to understand that, when we look at Canada and its perhaps 38 million people, we know that in the last year, 10,000 people died from medical assistance in dying. In California, which has a very similar population and perhaps similar rules, there were only 400 deaths due to medical assistance in dying.

People might ask why we would not compare with the Netherlands. It has been at this for a while, and maybe it is a better representation. They have a population of 17 million people and about 5,000 people died to medical assistance in dying.

They already have statutes that include depression, dementia and all the other things I have mentioned previously, so if we wanted to compare that directly to Canada, including depression and perhaps advance requests, they would have about 10,000 deaths at the current time. We know that in Canada, without mental disorder and without advance requests, there are already 10,000 people who have died between 2020 and 2021 due to MAID. That is a year over year increase of 32%.

That, to me, is concerning, and I think that anybody in this chamber would also know that on the world stage, sadly, in my mind anyway, Canada has been a world leader in medical assistance in dying, and many countries around the world have brought forward concerns of the slippery slope that Canada is now going down.

One of the things the government has promised to Canadians, which they have not delivered upon, is the Canada mental health transfer, and I am sure that my hon. colleague just before me spoke about this, so I am sad to have missed it. That was a $4.5 billion transfer that was promised by the government in its platform in the last election. I read a new article about this, and it says, “in August 2021, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said this brand new transfer was needed”—

Firearms

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners have requested that Bill C-21, as it is an affront to the private property rights of Canadians, not go forward and that it be recalled.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will have seen that we are consulting with legal firearms owners. In fact, that is precisely what we have been doing throughout the course of Bill C-21 and will continue to do so, because we know that hunters, trappers and first nations are part of the Canadian social fabric.

More to the point, what we are targeting are those AR-15 style guns that have been used in some of the worst mass-shooting tragedies in this country's history. That is what we are after. We are also going to support the CBSA, which is stopping an increasing number of illegal firearms at our border. That is something that I hope my colleague would support. However, in order to do that, he actually has to vote for those appropriations, and the next time we do that, I hope he will.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing that work. We are doing that work by introducing a national ban on assault-style rifles, which have been used in some of the worst mass killing shootings in this country's history. We are doing that work with Bill C-21, which would raise maximum sentences for hardened gun traffickers.

What is my colleague doing with regard to that bill? Her and her party have been filibustering it. They should stop doing that. They should study the bill. They should support our policies. They should also support the investments we have provided for law enforcement and for addressing the root causes of crime when it comes to the building safer communities fund. They voted against each and every one of those things. They should reverse course.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Welcome, Dr. Zinger. It's great to see both of you here.

For quite a while, our committee has really been sidelined with Bill C-21, and I think this is an important reminder of just how big the public safety portfolio is and how important your work is. I am glad we are doing this important change of topic.

I want to talk about reducing harms in the context of drug use. I come from British Columbia, which, in many ways, is the epicentre of the opioids crisis. In my community in the Cowichan Valley we have a really big problem. I have spoken with people who are on the front lines of this crisis. My Conservative friends like to underline the importance of treatment, and I agree with them, but my counter to that is that you can't treat a dead person.

Right now, we have so many people who are suffering from trauma. They are going out and playing Russian roulette every time they buy street drugs, because of the levels of fentanyl. Many of them are just not ready for treatment. There is a staged process for someone to be successful at treatment.

In your prisoner profile, you highlight the number of people who have substance use issues, and the mental health crisis. My first question to you is this: When it comes to reducing harm in our prisons, can you just put that in the context of what the overdose rate is like in our prisons?

The fact is that inmates, many of whom have substance abuse issues, are going to find a way to use drugs. That is just a fact. Drugs will make their way into prisons. I have talked with staff at the Kent Institution and at the Mountain Institution. Drugs will find their way into the prisons.

In terms of reducing harms and just trying to keep these prisoners alive so that they can, maybe, one day, successfully get into a program, I would like to hear more context from you on this really big issue.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, typically, I think our answers are supposed to be as long as the questions, which means that I am going to be making another speech given how long my colleague's question was.

First of all, I could respond to the member for Drummond that his question does not matter to me one bit either, but I will try to be a little more polite than he is on that front.

As I said in my speech, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois wants sovereignty; it is a left-wing party that supports the Parti Québécois. There is no denying it.

The Government of Quebec is not the Parti Québécois. The Bloc Québécois does not have the sole authority to speak for all Quebeckers. That is patently untrue. I am a Quebecker and proud of it, as are my Conservative colleagues and even several Liberal members. We are all Quebeckers and we all speak for Quebec.

When I make connections between Bloc Québécois positions, I look at their platform and I look at the state of affairs, such as bills C-5, C-75 and C-21. I could go on and name more, but I do not have enough time.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.

After eight years of the Prime Minister's dismal governance, he is now trying to turn attention away from his record, the cost of living crisis of his own making, the highest spikes in inflation in 40 years and the doubling of the price of rent and the cost of mortgages. He wants to turn Canadians' attention away from the record use of food banks, the record credit card debt and the fact that he tripled the carbon tax. He wants Canadians to forget that violent crimes have increased by 32%, that gang-related homicides have increased by 92%, that he has close ties to lobbyists who cost a fortune and that he has violated ethics rules.

The Prime Minister is trying once again to sow division in Canada. He is also trying to create a fake constitutional crisis. That is his latest attempt at dividing people and turning attention away from his failures.

The Bloc Québécois has no solutions for Quebec's real problems. On June 15, 1991, more than 30 years ago, in protest at the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and a few other MPs founded the Bloc Québécois for a “temporary” period. Would I have been part of that group? Perhaps. However, the temporary Bloc Québécois of 1991 in no way resembles the Bloc Québécois of 2023. In any case, this was not what Lucien Bouchard intended at the time.

Today, we understand why the Bloc Québécois, like the Liberal Party of Canada, is completely out of touch with the reality of Quebec residents. It is using a full day, an opposition day, to talk about the Constitution, when there are so many other matters that are more important to Quebeckers.

As the Quebec lieutenant for the Conservative Party of Canada, I am trying to understand where the Bloc Québécois is going with its sometimes nebulous strategies. I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the duly elected members, but rather the political party, which only cares about Quebec sovereignty and which, despite the rhetorical flourishes of its leader, has only one thing in mind: to bring down the Canadian federation.

This is why I question its strategic decision to devote a full day of debate to a subject that does not interest Quebeckers: the Canadian Constitution. Are there no topics that are more important to Quebeckers nowadays?

Despite its grand patriotic speeches, I sense that the Bloc Québécois is only focused on the Liberal government and its leftist agenda.

In the last eight years, we have seen a disoriented Bloc Québécois trying to score political points on various issues, but the people of Quebec expect their federal members of the House to work for them.

Article 070 of the main proposal prepared for the Bloc Québécois' upcoming national convention in May states: “We have the right to make mistakes, rethink our positions and change our minds”. That being the case, it should take this opportunity to course correct.

I can think of several examples of questionable choices made by the Bloc Québécois. Was it a good idea to support the Liberal government's Bill C-5, the infamous bill that allows street thugs to avoid prison time and sex offenders to serve their sentence at home instead of in jail where they belong? Was it a good idea to vote with the Liberal government in favour of Bill C-75, which allows the worst criminals to be released on bail when they are still a threat to society? Was it a good idea to punish hunters and indigenous people by supporting the Liberals' Bill C-21?

The Bloc has a very leftist agenda. It is the Liberal government' best ally. Are Quebeckers aware of that?

I hear members laughing. They can go ahead and laugh all they like, but facts are facts.

When Lucien Bouchard formed the Bloc Québécois, he clearly indicated that the party was meant to be a temporary measure. Over 30 years later, we are really seeing the wear and tear. Paragraph 018 of the Bloc Québécois's main position paper states, and I quote, “We, like the vast majority of Quebeckers, naturally think of the Quebec National Assembly when we talk about our government.” We see here a party that is still trying to find itself.

This political party claims to support the Quebec National Assembly and the Government of Quebec. However, during the most recent Quebec election campaign, the Bloc Québécois put all of its energy and resources into supporting the Parti Québécois and working against Coalition Avenir Québec, the party that won the election by a landslide and now forms the government. How can the Bloc claim to be an ally of the Quebec government when its objective is to get PQ members elected? Also, how can it be recognized as an effective voice for Quebec when it only managed to get three PQ members elected?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Speaker, rest assured that I am excluding you from this argument, but I get the impression that Quebec does not have many friends in the House. This has been made particularly evident by what seems to be—and this may seem harsh—the Liberal government's descent into hell. The government is essentially the only one to blame, and it is useful in this context to revisit—and, again this may sound harsh—a recent debacle. I will let you be the judge of that. Speaking of judges, we will, once again, have to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter.

I have made a little list. Bill C-21 on gun control was a lesson in clumsy backtracking, an unruly fiasco and a retreat that was anything but strategic. There was not even a whiff of them admitting to an error—an implicit error—and no recognition of the fact that, indeed, one must consider the safety of civilians and women while also preserving the legitimate privileges of sport hunters.

One example is the electoral map. I remember going to the Gaspé region last summer, just a few days after the Prime Minister, when the first new version of the electoral map had been considered and the riding of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was disappearing. The Prime Minister was in the region and had not said a single word about the fact that the regions in Quebec were being weakened. There might even have been a threat regarding the expressed desire of the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine to keep the file. The Prime Minister, however, never said a word; again, the government is essentially its deputy minister.

There is Medicago, a company, a flagship in technology research that, due to a kind of negligence perpetuated over time and interventions that were often too late, risks seeing the achievements of Quebec engineering go to Japan, subject to the good will of Mitsubishi, which will certainly be a major loss for Quebec and Canada.

There is the acquisition of Resolute Forest Products by Paper Excellence, which is owned by Sinar Mas. That represents 25% of cutting rights in public forests in Quebec and does not qualify in the new Bill C-34, which does not even protect it. Good heavens, if that is not protected, what will Bill C-34 protect?

There are obviously the health transfers. That is really very interesting. Of everyone here, we see that only the Bloc Québécois is both speaking for Quebec and representing the provinces' common front. The Bloc Québécois is the only party to stand up for Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We will wait for the thanks from the benches next to us. Only the Bloc Québécois is standing up for the will of the provinces, the territories and Quebec, while the others are being opportunistic or lazy. We will be told that what we are doing is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time; it is very revealing of how things work.

There is the McKinsey case. I do not have time to go through everything about McKinsey. There would be far too many secrets to be brought to light, like McKinsey and ethics, McKinsey and lobbying, McKinsey and defence, McKinsey and standing offers, and so on. McKinsey's former boss himself—who is surely not as naive as he tried to make us believe in committee—said that, if he had been the client, he would not have signed the contract that the Government of Canada signed. That is interesting. There is also McKinsey and immigration, as well as McKinsey and Century Initiative. One hundred million Canadians, how nice. That is quite a lot, given Quebec’s inability to absorb, over time, in French and with our values, the number of immigrants that that requires. I asked Mr. Barton whether he had considered Quebec. They did not consider it at all. It was not even on their radar.

Based on the ignorance expressed, my word, I want to be the boss at McKinsey. He does not work that hard and says he does not know anything. Also, I suspect the pay is not too bad. McKinsey has a role to play in border management and, of course, in language and identity.

There is also the exploitation of Roxham Road. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, according to recent revelations, not only do we have criminal smugglers, we now have an all-inclusive package on offer, on both sides. A bus ticket is provided and migrants are openly and brazenly sent to Roxham Road. No one likes handcuffs. However, a brief moment of discomfort from being handcuffed is worth it for migrants, who are very happy to have reached Quebec; of course Quebec is paying the costs of welcoming them in a humane manner.

There is the appointment of Ms. Elghawaby. I will not repeat the whole speech and I do not want to make this personal. That said, it was clear that the government has an extraordinary ability to isolate and protect itself. If our homes were as well protected as the government, we would not need insulation.

Of course, there is also the referral of Quebec’s secularism law to the Supreme Court of Canada in the hope of overturning it.

Beyond that, the divisiveness over Bill C-13 is quite dramatic. I would not want to invite myself to a Liberal caucus meeting, and I think its members would not like that either, but there must be some very passionate conversations within that caucus. It must be just as fascinating as the Conservatives’ conversations about abortion. There may be a few little things that need to be resolved. For our part, everything is going very well. The federal government may also go to the Supreme Court over Bill 96, which deals with the French language.

We have now come to the motion on the notwithstanding clause, which may also go before the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to speak about a very interesting aspect. In principle, Trudeau senior said that the will of Parliament had to ultimately prevail. That is why the 1982 Constitution, which we consider to be a despicable document, includes this principle of ensuring the primacy of the democracy of parliaments. Let us keep in mind that we have never signed on to that Constitution. We have been pointing that out for a few weeks now.

That was quickly tested. In 1988, the Ford decision established, on the one hand, that the use of the notwithstanding clause was legitimate and, on the other hand, that the role of the court was not to engage in pointless discussions, but to rule on the substance and wording of things.

Let us not forget that Mr. Lévesque firmly invoked and inserted the notwithstanding clause in all of the laws passed by Quebec’s National Assembly. Many fits were had, but Canada survived.

It is important to understand the current government’s legislative or judicial approach—or flight of fancy. By invoking federal documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, and by appointing new judges as old ones leave, the Prime Minister hopes to replace the decisions of the provincial legislatures and of the House of Commons with those of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to modify by interpretation the Canadian Constitution. As we said earlier, the Constitution is much more theirs than it is ours.

Having had the opportunity over time to appoint judges, the Prime Minister is confident that he has a Supreme Court of Canada whose constitution, pardon the pun, will be favourable to him. He wants to modify the Constitution by having it interpreted by judges he has appointed. This happens elsewhere in the world, and it is rarely an honourable procedure. A Parliament is always sovereign, otherwise any one Parliament could impose its will on another.

Quebec’s National Assembly is sovereign in its choices and its votes. Quebec’s Parliament is, in a word, national. Now, more than ever, Quebec’s National Assembly needs the notwithstanding clause, which guarantees the prerogative and primacy of parliaments and elected members over the decisions of the courts. Courts are there only to interpret, despite the fact that we have learned, particularly over the course of Quebec history, that interpretations can, over time, and without casting stones, be nudged in a certain direction. We do not want government by judges, but government by elected members, government by the people.

As I said at the beginning, it is important to mention that the notwithstanding clause is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember a question period during which we were told that it was awful, that they were not against the notwithstanding clause but against its pre-emptive use.

Of course, as it is wont to do, it is when the government runs out of arguments that it starts spouting the worst nonsense. That was a good one. If the notwithstanding clause is not to be used pre-emptively, what is the point?

The notwithstanding clause is like a COVID-19 vaccine. People get vaccinated to avoid getting COVID-19, not after they get it. The notwithstanding clause protects Quebec’s laws. We could say “the laws of Quebec and the provinces”, but let us be clear: Aside from a recent notorious case in Ontario, the notwithstanding clause is mostly used in Quebec, particularly when it comes to national identity and jurisdiction, precisely so that we do not have to hear the courts say that we cannot apply our own legislation, that it is being challenged, and that we now have to use the notwithstanding clause to fix a situation that, in the meantime, has had a deleterious effect.

Clearly, that is not how we want to or even how we should use the notwithstanding clause. Too often, harm would be done, and the same courts would have to suspend the application of the law. The notwithstanding clause is a small piece of sovereignty. “Sovereignty” is a word that frightens people. Using it inspires strong feelings and cold sweats. Sovereignty, however, is merely exclusive jurisdiction held by any party. This Parliament claims sovereignty, except in the case of Chinese spy balloons.

It is essential to recognize that, by invoking the notwithstanding clause, a jurisdiction that is a parliament, which by definition is sovereign, is claiming a small part of its sovereignty in jurisdictions which, logically speaking, should be exclusive to it.

This logical relationship between identity, the fact that Quebec is a nation begrudgingly recognized by this Parliament in a very specific context on June 16, 2021, and the fact that Quebec is the one that must resort to this clause is because Quebec is a nation, and its parliament is a national Parliament. Allow me to say that, in my opinion, this is too little.

It is too little because, of course, we want Quebeckers—in their own time, obviously, but we will encourage them—to think about sovereignty as a whole, a nation with a single national Parliament, which, as Mr. Parizeau said, would collect all taxes—we are capable of doing this and we would be having an entirely different conversation about health transfers—vote for all laws applicable in Quebec, sign all treaties and honour all existing treaties, as necessary.

Usually, people do not think about being normal. It goes without saying. We embrace normality, we seek normality and we assume normality. Quebec just needs to think about it right now, and for some time, and observe how its national identity is treated in a Parliament that should at least be a good neighbour if it cannot be a good partner.

This remains an essential reflection, but given the current context, it may no longer hold tomorrow or the next day. The game of cat and mouse, the jurisdictional stonewalling, the encroachments, the interference are anything but progress, efficiency or instruments for the greater good.

Until that necessarily deeper reflection occurs, we certainly need, in this Parliament, to solicit the good faith of colleagues and elected officials in recognizing that Quebec and the provinces have a legitimate right to use the notwithstanding clause. We are not requesting a change to the way things are done. We are asking that it be acknowledged. We simply wish to state the truth and are calling on Parliament to say that it does indeed reflect reality.

Voting against this truth would be akin to challenging the Canadian Constitution itself. This temptation was evident in the Prime Minister's comments. That raised some eyebrows, given the legacy. We are calling on the House to recognize a literal truth, if only out of respect.

In the meantime, and regardless of today’s vote, the Quebec nation and its representatives have only one true friend in this place. Only one political party raises the issues of language, identity, immigration, health care funding and the preservation of the notwithstanding clause in this House. Its members have just as much legitimacy as those of every other party. They are the members of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois is proud to stand once again, without compromise, but with a sense of responsibility and with courage, to raise, defend and promote the interests of Quebec, which we hope will accomplish even more.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Abbotsford.

Conservatives have been calling for changes to this act for years. For nearly eight years, the government has ignored the growing role of state-owned and state-controlled enterprises in Canada’s economy. For nearly eight years, the government has failed to take seriously the threat posed by the government of Beijing.

For nearly eight years, the government has sat back passively while Beijing has used ostensibly private corporations as proxies to project its government's power and influence into the Canadian economy. After eight years, the government has finally tabled legislation to strengthen the Investment Canada Act, which is a good thing, but it is something that should have been done years ago.

To assess the government's credibility on the issue, it is important that we examine its track record on protecting Canadians from investment by authoritarian regimes in the Canadian economy. This is a government that, in 2017, failed to conduct a national security review when Beijing-owned Hytera Communications bought Norsat.

The former minister Navdeep Bains and the Prime Minister falsely claimed that a review was done, obfuscating the mandatory 45-day waiting period for approval with an actual, fulsome national security review as defined in the existing act. Even Tom Mulcair, the former leader of the NDP, criticized the government for rubber stamping the Hytera deal.

This takeover had serious consequences for Canada’s credibility with our allies. Norsat was an American defence contractor, and Canada allowed this takeover without a proper security review. Such a review was an option, and is an option, for the government under the existing Investment Canada Act, and that option was not undertaken on the Hytera deal.

Since then, Hytera has been banned from doing business in the United States and faces 21 espionage charges. This is the company that the government let into Canada without a national security review on the Norsat deal. The same company then received a contract to supply radio communications work to the RCMP. The same company had a contract with the Canada Border Services Agency for X-ray equipment.

This is the same government that also failed to stop Anbang from buying a chain of seniors homes, as we heard earlier from the NDP. Anbang also bought other buildings, which raised concerns not only about the substandard care that subsequently occurred in the seniors homes it took over, but also about corporate espionage in other buildings that were part of that deal.

This is a government that contracted with a company, whose founder was connected to the very top echelons of the PRC, to supply X-ray equipment to 170 embassies. This is a government that took years to finally ban Huawei from being a supplier of infrastructure to Canada’s 5G network, despite the obvious national security concerns. This reluctance has compromised Canada’s credibility with our Five Eyes intelligence partners. The government’s current industry minister approved the Neo Lithium takeover without a national security review

The opposition has spent years raising important questions about cracks and loopholes in existing laws, while the government claimed that there was no need to change the law until now, and it falsely claimed that it was using the tools available to it to help keep Canadians safe. It did this with such arrogance. It claimed that the opposition was simply playing politics whenever we raised a question about national security.

This is what the Liberals do. They dig in, when they find themselves on the wrong side of an issue, then finally flip while ignoring their past intransigence. This sudden flip, like what we are seeing right now with Bill C-34, on the need to address investment by autocratic, state-owned enterprises, is just like last week’s flip on Bill C-21 when they attempted to ban hunting rifles and shotguns.

Did they admit that the opposition was right all along? No. Did they thank the opposition for raising a point that they made a mistake that needed to be fixed? Did they admit that they were misleading Canadians for months? Did they admit that they were falsely claiming that the opposition was lying about the consequences of their amendment? Did the Minister of Public Safety admit that he was wrong and that he had misled Canadians? Did he apologize for attacking the opposition's motives? No, of course not. That is not what they do.

What they do is attack the motives of those who criticize them. When it becomes absolutely clear, like it is on this issue today of investment by autocratic state-owned enterprises, they might backpedal, but they do not take responsibility. They do not apologize or admit they were wrong.

As the opposition, we are just doing our job when we raise questions about public policy concerns, identify mistakes the government has made and identify shortcomings in existing laws or potential consequences of new laws or policies. The opposition has an ancient and sacred obligation to force the government to try to be better, and I just wish that it would listen from time to time, especially when it comes to national security.

Liberals and Conservatives are probably not very far apart from each other on the role of government when it comes to national security. I would hope that we are not far apart. This is not an ideological difference. We all care about our national security. With that in mind, I have some suggestions and points for Parliament to consider and hopefully also for the government to consider.

The bill would give the minister significantly more power but not necessarily a pathway to the best decisions. One thing this bill would do is shift power from cabinet, from order in council, to direct ministerial decision-making. This may result in faster decision-making but not necessarily better decisions.

I am concerned that the lack of a clear, strong definition of a state-owned enterprise may harm foreign investment in Canada overall without protecting Canadians from hostile foreign governments. The Canadian economy relies on direct foreign investment, and the parliamentary secretary talked about that. We need foreign, private capital from reciprocating open economies, and we have to be careful about what signals the bill sends to global capital markets.

I am disappointed that the bill does not simply allow the government to ban governments of autocratic and hostile regimes, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea or the People's Republic of China, through a simple list. This might be the easiest way to deal with the small number of countries seeking to exert power and influence within the Canadian economy through state-owned enterprises.

I am concerned that the bill does not appear to capture transactions where, rather than shares, a Canadian company sells assets, such as mines, farms, intellectual property and data, to a foreign state-owned enterprise.

I am especially concerned that maintaining the existing $400-million threshold for a mandatory government approval of a foreign takeover leaves the door wide open for the growing concern of Beijing-affiliated entities buying up farms, fishing enterprises, wharves and airport cargo facilities. These enterprises may have diverse ownership, but in aggregate, they have the potential to distort markets for important commodities, such as food. If the buyer of a Canadian company is the Government of China, the threshold for a national security review should be zero dollars, and every transaction of the foreign enterprises owned by the state should be captured.

In short, I do agree that the bill is an attempt to address serious and important policy concerns, and I will support the motion that is before the House to send the bill to committee. My opposition colleagues and I are committed to working with other parliamentarians to make the bill better.

No party has a monopoly on good ideas. This is a great opportunity to show Canadians that parliamentarians can work together and that the result of Parliament's adversarial process is that the best ideas will prevail through debate. As we debate the bill and study it at committee, we can co-operate, get beyond past mistakes and get serious about protecting Canadians from property theft, espionage, intellectual property theft, market distortions and other harms that result when foreign governments that are hostile to Canada's way of life take advantage of our open society and open economy. We are talking about transactions that are not fuelled by the market but by the raw power of a state to exert its influence on the Canadian economy.

Therefore, I will vote for the bill, but it is weak and needs a lot of work.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country for her passionate speech. I think she demonstrated that the carbon tax does not need to be increased. That is what we are calling for.

People keep saying in their speeches today that the Conservatives will not let up on this topic and that we keep repeating the same message in our opposition motions. Why would that be? It is because we in the Conservative Party want to work for Canadians.

Economically speaking, we are in a precarious position. We are on the edge of a crisis, and by all indications, things are going to get worse in the coming months.

Our Conservative conscience is prompting us to beg the government to give Canadians some breathing room. It is odd that we are being accused of hammering away at this issue. I think it is our duty as parliamentarians. Our Conservative values will always motivate us to go in that direction.

I would like to remind the House that my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn moved an opposition motion today. It is clear. I am not saying that out of partisan pride or sheer stubbornness. We just need to take a good look at the situation.

The first point in today's opposition motion states that “(i) the Bank of Canada governor has admitted that the carbon tax contributes to inflation”. It is not our partisan colleagues, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP or the Liberals who are saying this; it is the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It is important to understand that there is some separation. Perhaps that makes the information more serious, unequivocal and impartial.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada is not the only one backing up our discourse and our request. The second point of the motion states that “(ii) the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that households will pay more in carbon tax costs than they get back”.

The Liberals are saying that there is no problem with their tax because they are putting the money back into taxpayers' pockets. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that, yes, there is a rebate, but it is not equal. Once again, this leaves less money available to Canadian taxpayers.

The third point of our motion states that “(iii) the government plans to triple the carbon tax, which will increase the price of gas, groceries, and home heating”. That is a fact.

Let us consider Canadian citizens. I hope that all members of the House meet with their constituents. People in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier are telling me that everything is more expensive.

If the government were sensitive to those concerns, it would do what several other countries are doing and cancel all tax hikes. I think that is reasonable under the circumstances. That said, the Liberals and the government are not that sensitive.

The Liberals have been in power for eight years. They talk until they are blue in the face about how the carbon tax is the best way to reduce greenhouse gases and how it is the magic solution. It might be the easy solution. The government is pocketing more money while seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadian taxpayers because there have been no results.

Unfortunately, in eight years, there has been no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is more revenue flowing into government coffers. In this economic context, I believe it is reasonable to give Canadians a little bit of assistance.

I would like to set the record straight on something. This morning, I listened as members of different parties described the Conservatives as climate change deniers. I want to make it clear that our leader recognizes climate change, but he is not in the habit of taking shortcuts and waving a magic wand. The past eight years have shown us what happens when one waves a magic wand.

I have a document here. It is part of my notes, so I can show it to members. It is a chart from the Conference of the Parties, or COP, on the environment. There are 63 countries on it. At the top of the chart are Denmark, Sweden, Chile and Portugal. Then, in the next section, we see Egypt, Greece and Indonesia. Even further down the list, in the orange section, we see Thailand, Belarus and Turkey. Incidentally, I want to say that my thoughts are with the people of Turkey. I can only offer them supportive thoughts because, unfortunately, I am not there, but I think that the international community needs to take action to help the people of Turkey who are dealing with this disaster.

I will keep going with the list. The United States is ranked 52nd, and Canada is ranked 58th. Ouch. Nevertheless, the government is determined to increase the carbon tax. That does not make any sense.

As I was saying, the Conservative Party cares about the issue of climate change, and we have solutions. We are being accused of criticizing the carbon tax without offering solutions. As our leader mentioned this morning, we need to provide help to the clean technology sector.

Canada is unique in that it is the second-largest country in the world behind Russia. The carbon tax may not be effective here. We should not be using the same model as a European country whose population is very concentrated when our country is very different. Let us do the smart thing and develop clean technology. Yes, it can be an economic lever. Money is the main thing, but that money needs to be raised honestly, by creating prosperity, not by taking it out of taxpayers' pockets through a carbon tax.

Why not invest in clean technology? Why not develop it here? Canada has talent and know-how. We could then export that clean technology and make Canada a leader on the environment and on clean technology. Why not?

According to an article on the Radio-Canada website this morning, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is focusing on Quebec's caribou population. He should instead be working on reducing greenhouse gases by identifying methods other than the carbon tax. He should let the provinces take action and look after their own territory. Quebec has a better record than Canada on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In their eight years in power, the Liberals have never managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In closing, I would like to quote a passage from the Radio-Canada article. In response to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Quebec's minister, Benoit Charette, said that he had the impression that the agreement reached in August with Ottawa would preclude federal intervention. He stated, “The federal government's approach in this matter is hard to follow”.

It is hard to follow on many files. We need only think of the official languages file, Bill C-21 and McKinsey. I do not know if anyone is at the controls in this government.

It is unacceptable that we are being criticized. We, the Conservatives, are working on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, and we will continue that work.

Firearms

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of residents from Kelowna—Lake Country and the surrounding area in relation to the government bill, Bill C-21, on firearms. It is quite lengthy, but I will go right to the asks of the government. They are asking for the government to, first, stop targeting law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and farmers with gun legislation; second, immediately withdraw the amendments tabled on November 22, 2022, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security; and last, withdraw the existing bill, Bill C-21, and restart consultations with the firearms community, firearms owners and public safety experts.

Public Safety

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has pointed out an extremely important problem that exists in Montreal, Quebec and across the country.

I would like to understand one thing. If my colleague is concerned about violence linked to firearms, why do the Conservatives systematically block measures that would make it easier to control firearms in Canada?

Our government introduced Bill C‑21 to put a stop to handgun sales across the country, but the Conservatives are against it.

Firearms

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, we are committed, and we promised Canadians that we would take action on gun violence. On the particular amendments the hon. member has referred to in Bill C-21, an important bill that would deal with gun violence, I will acknowledge there was not enough consultation. There were not enough conversations with indigenous peoples across the country. That is why we are committed in our committee to listening to the concerns and to making sure that our legislation is one that will protect public safety and keep Canadians safe. I look forward to working with the hon. member.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, every community deserves to feel safe, and that is what Bill C-21 was originally intended to do: end handgun violence. Instead, the Liberals introduced amendments at the eleventh hour that would make it harder for indigenous people, farmers and hunters to support their families and put food on their tables. Today, the Liberals finally dropped the amendments that the Assembly of First Nations said would go against its treaty rights.

Will the minister apologize for the mess he made with these amendments?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the minister told me he is going to Washington next week. I know there is a Chinese surveillance balloon going over the U.S., and I understand the government has withdrawn its terrible firearm amendments to Bill C-21. When the minister is there, if he spots it, maybe he could do something about it with an appropriate firearm.

After eight years, the government is finally getting around to making some administrative changes to the Investment Canada Act. Why is this important? Because foreign direct investment is increasing and causing us great problems in Canada.

I would start off by informing the House that, while we think these amendments are inadequate to deal with the things that are happening, we will be voting in favour, in principle, at second reading of this bill. These amendments improve the bill, just not enough. However, we will be seeking considerable amendments to improve this bill at the committee stage.

The minister went through some of the things the bill does, and I will start by commenting on a few of them. I think the preimplementation filing change required in certain industries when a deal is done, that the filing and notification go to Investment Canada, is good. It should happen after closing. I would have hoped the minister would make all investment applications subject to prefiling. I do not know what the point is of looking at a foreign direct investment after it is closed; it is very difficult to unwind a transaction.

The minister spoke about the streamlining of the process to speed it up within the 45 days. We have some concerns about removing cabinet from that process, not necessarily up front, because I think that process to start it is an important one. However, when the review comes back from officials, either for or against it having a national security or net benefit issue, we believe that should go to cabinet in all cases. I know the experience during the Harper government was that when these things came back to cabinet, there was robust discussion on every one, and this resulted in a better decision, Therefore, we think that the power to actually decide that at the end of the day should still rest with cabinet.

It does add the ability for the minister to create a list of targeted industries through regulation. We would like to learn a little more about what industries the minister is going to address. I think there are industries outside of the list. These include, to be parochial in my neck of the woods, seafood and other areas that are being targeted in the food sector by state-owned enterprises from less co-operative countries.

The interim conditions and all of that in the bill are a good addition to the bill.

We want to explore the area of the legal process appeal issues around secrecy for national security or commercial reasons a bit more at committee. We just want to make sure we understand that, in the future, we are not going to be blocking information the public should have. I think there are some transparency provisions in this bill that say if the minister rejects an acquisition, the reasons for this have to be fairly transparent and public. I do not believe there is a requirement to do that now.

However, there are some things we do not believe the provisions address. Let us start with the record of the current government regarding China's takeover of many of our important assets. The other thing the bill does not do, and I will talk about this in a few minutes, is deal with the sale not just of companies, but of the assets of companies.

In 2017, there was, and still is, a company called Norsat out of British Columbia, which also owns a company called Sinclair in Toronto. It was acquired by Hytera in China, which is partially owned by the Government of China, in the critical telecommunications business. Even though he was urged many times in the House, the minister of industry of the day refused to do a national security review of that acquisition. The minister has the freedom to say that he does not think it is a problem and he is not going to do it. Therefore, no national security review was done of that acquisition.

That is a problem because now we come to January 2022, when Hytera was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the United States in and then banned from doing business in the United States by President Biden. Yet eight months later, the RCMP bought radio frequency equipment to go into the communications system, giving the Chinese state-owned subsidiaries access to all the locations of the RCMP communications services. There was no public security review of that. These are the things that still fall through the cracks.

As I mentioned earlier, Manitoba-based lithium mining company, Tantalum Mining Corp., known as Tanco, was purchased in 2019. Again, the previous minister, not this one, refused to do a national security review of that acquisition. When this minister asked three Chinese state-owned enterprises to divest their Canadian critical mining assets, he did not even include this one, yet it is the largest producer of lithium and cesium in Canada, and all of it goes to China.

In 2020, we all know, the Department of Foreign Affairs bought X-ray equipment from a Chinese state-owned enterprise to go in all the embassies. I believe this minister may have been the minister at that time. No, he was not, but it was a Liberal minister, obviously, who said it was okay and did not back off on it until it was raised in this House.

In March 2021, as the minister referenced, the minister updated and enhanced the guidelines for national security reviews in the absence of an updated act, although an update could have been done. In January the minister did not even follow his own guidelines when he had a divestiture order that included neither the Neo Lithium Corp. nor the Tanco Corp.

In December, I mentioned Hytera and the Canada Border Services Agency. Of course this week we learned, although it is not an acquisition, that the scientific arm of the army of the People's Republic of China is doing research on artificial intelligence and supercomputing in our universities, our 10 biggest universities. They own the IP from that, and it is partially funded by Canadian taxpayers.

These are the things the bill does not address. It is a shameful situation that we are actually helping the largest surveillance state in the world, which used that technology not only on its own citizens but also to repress the Uighurs, and we actually helped develop that technology. Of course we know it uses that technology here. In 2017, China passed a national security act, and clauses 7 and 10 of that act require all citizens and all companies to spy on companies and people in the world. It is against the law for a company based in China to not spy and steal technology and information from companies abroad. We have allowed these takeovers to happen in the last eight years under the Liberal government.

There are several areas that we need to talk about for additional improvement. There was a really good House of Commons industry committee report, which our leader was the vice-chair of in the last Parliament. Most of the recommendations have been ignored by the Liberal government, even though government members put the recommendations forward. Not only is the Liberal government ignoring the recommendations that the official opposition put forward, but it is also ignoring the recommendations for improvement to the Investment Canada Act put forward by its own members of Parliament.

Recommendation number one in that report dealt with state-owned enterprises. What it asked for was that state-owned enterprises for all countries that we deem to be authoritarian or hostile to Canada have an automatic review. The way that is done is by reducing the financial threshold for the automatic review. Right now, that is $415 million. A state-owned enterprise can come in and buy anything it wants in Canada for under $415 million, as my friend from the NDP referenced in his question to the minister, without any scrutiny by the government.

Even in my own community, four fish-buying businesses were bought by Chinese state-owned enterprises on the south shore of Nova Scotia in the last quarter. That is important because those businesses set the price of what they get from fishermen. They set what the fishermen get. Through that process and through China's buying two international freight corridors, China now controls all lobster and the access to the departure of lobster from the Halifax airport. None of those transactions would be reviewable under this act. As a result, my lobster buyers would not truck their lobster to the Halifax airport, because China has taken it up. Rather, they would have to truck it to New York and Chicago to get our lobster to Asia. That is just a small part.

We know the Chinese enterprises are buying farms. They are buying up all kinds of key assets in this country, and none of that gets reviewed. Therefore, we would encourage and would be seeking amendments to this bill in committee to move that threshold for state-owned enterprises to zero in the act, requiring the minister and the department to follow that.

The government did not include any provisions that I can see in the net benefit for that issue of state-owned enterprises in foreign countries actually getting control of industries, let alone a particular asset. We are not looking at the concentration control, particularly of hostile actors going after that strategically. I know there is a provision in the bill that would allow the minister to create a list of targeted industries. We are a little skeptical that the list would be as comprehensive as it needs to be and would reflect a zero-dollar review, given the record of the current government over the last eight years. It has not even sought national security reviews of state-owned enterprises from China when it had the authority to do so on those acquisitions.

The bill does not include a provision to actually list countries. Other countries have looked at that. In addition to selected industries, the minister should have the authority, through regulation, to have a list of state actors and countries that we do not believe are advantageous for our economy or are actually a threat to our economy if they continue to try to buy not only our companies but the companies' assets. I will come to this in a minute.

The bill would change the process, which I referred to earlier, of the involvement of cabinet. We would like to probe this a little more in committee, but I understand the need. The 45 days has not changed in the Investment Canada Act and there is obviously a need for speed. Therefore, the point that the minister has put forward here, which is that at the beginning of the process, the minister and Minister of Public Safety can determine when that goes in without having to go to cabinet, and this would speed up the process. We believe that is a reasonable thing, but we would want to explore that a little more in committee. However, it is on the other end that we have the problem because perhaps not all ministers of industry are as diligent as this one.

I do know, in the short time I have been working with the minister, that he is the most accessible minister I have had a chance to work with since I have been in the House, and he is co-operative. I know he understands and is concerned about what the opposition members think in terms of looking at amendments to the bills, and he takes our suggestions seriously. We want to look at this issue wherein a minister who was perhaps not as diligent would be less involved in making the right decision when it is determined to be a net benefit, or not, or when the research comes back and says it is a national security interest, or not. Whatever the recommendation from officials, we believe it should always go back to cabinet for discussion before the final decision is made.

The act does not attempt to change definitions of state-owned enterprises or look at the issue of what constitutes control.

One does not have to buy 50% of a company to control a company. Someone can buy small percentages of it, get a number of seats on the board or change management, which Hytera has done. It has changed management in Sinclair and Norsat. None of those things are really looked at very strongly in Bill C-34 and need a little more consideration.

One of the interesting things brought up by the industry committee at the time of that report, and I think my friend from the NDP was on the committee, was the issue of subsequent takeovers. A Canadian company may be acquired by a company or an industry that we think is okay, and it gets approved as it is not from a state-owned enterprise. Subsequently, though, down the road, that company can be bought by a state-owned enterprise. There is no provision in this bill to give the minister the power, when that happens, to automatically relook at whether, in that transaction, we should be forcing the divestiture of that Canadian asset from that future transaction of a state-owned enterprise down the road.

That is very important, because Russia and China are getting more aggressive at doing these things. They come in through the front door but also through the back door, and we need to be very vigilant about that.

The minister mentioned intangible assets. This is a big area. In 2009 it was not so much part of the economy, but it is big now. One of the ways our economy can be harmed is not just through the purchase of a company, but through the purchase or sale of some of its assets. It could be simply that it is not just the taking over one of our mining companies, but that one of our mining companies is selling a strategic mining asset, like a particular mine, to a state player we are not comfortable with. It could be that a database gets sold. It could be that a particular artificial intelligence or knowledge-based patent we have and own in Canada gets sold. That company may still remain Canadian, but more and more companies are looking, when they develop these things, at those assets.

Probably the worst example in Canada is Nortel. When Nortel went into bankruptcy, it had the most patents, I believe, of any technology- and knowledge-based company in Canada. The Canadian liquidator's responsibility was to maximize whatever it could get for the assets. China quite regularly goes in and pays four, five or six times what a business is worth. That is what it did in my riding last quarter. It paid five times what the business was worth. It paid $10 million for $2-million-valued businesses, which is way below the threshold.

It took advantage of the Nortel situation, and almost all of those patents were sold by the liquidator to a Chinese state-owned enterprise that became Huawei, which is banned now in the United States. It took the government only five years to figure that one out. We helped create Huawei through our weak rules around foreign investment in state-owned enterprises in assets, and not just the companies, so we need to have more study and understanding. We can look at those in committee, and I know the minister is taking this seriously. I see him nodding there, so hopefully we can work with the government to improve Bill C-34.

Nonetheless, the bill is an improvement over the existing act and would give the minister and the industry some much-needed clarification. Therefore, for the most part, at this stage, we will be supporting this, but we will be seeking many more amendments in committee. I look forward to hearing from the very experienced member, the shadow minister for industry from the NDP, who has been in the House for a long time and has been on the industry committee for a long time, to see what he proposes, in terms of his speech but also his work in the House.

I will conclude there, and I look forward to the debate by all members in the House on this bill, which is very important for Canadians.

Public Safety

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, maybe we will try a different tack. That response sounded very similar to the last time I got up here and asked the parliamentary secretary about a very similar issue.

We just spent the day debating the requirement for immediate bail reform. My question is to the parliamentary secretary. He stated earlier today, as has the minister, that he is committed to working with the premiers of all the provinces to address the needed bail reform in this country. Could he commit tonight to how quickly they are going to act on making these necessary changes to bail in Canada, and for once to start standing up and making this country safer versus, again, as I keep saying, bringing forth legislation like Bill C-21, which targets law-abiding Canadians, not going after criminals?

Opposition Motion—Bail Reform

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing sets us apart from the Bloc Québécois. One day, we will be in power and we will be able to introduce bills. We will then be able to correct the provisions spelled out in Bill C‑75. The Bloc Québécois will never be able to do that.

The Bloc Québécois should ask itself some serious questions about certain positions it has taken in the past weeks and months. For example, there is Bill C‑21 and the amendments it supported to ban certain firearms. That happened. It is true.

It also supported Bill C‑5, which is directly responsible for the release of this rapist to his home. The Bloc Québécois should ask itself these types of questions when it is time to support and adopt motions.

The Conservatives have a solution. It is not perfect, but it is a starting point. I hope once again that the Bloc Québécois will make amends and support our motion.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

It is always a privilege to stand in this House to speak on behalf of my constituents of Brantford—Brant. After eight years, the Prime Minister and his government are solely responsible for our failing justice system. This is pressing and urgent; bail reform is needed now. Far too often, we are hearing Canadians use language such as “catch and release”, “a revolving door” and “an unequal justice system” to describe the state of affairs in Canadian bail courts.

In my almost two decades of prosecuting in the trenches of our criminal justice system, I have repeatedly witnessed dangerous criminals being released on bail. I am honoured to add my experience working in the criminal justice system to such an important debate. A major concern during my lawyer years was our inability to keep violent repeat offenders off the streets and in custody where they belong. I was unable to vocally criticize the lenient bail system as a Crown attorney, so I made the decision to become a politician to effect change.

The Liberal government wants Canadians to believe it has crime under control with its justice policies and that it is on the right track. I thank our Conservative leader and all my Conservative colleagues for bringing this debate into the House and for showing Canadians that this Liberal soft-on-crime agenda has broken our bail system and eroded confidence in our judicial institutions.

In 2019, to codify the principles outlined in the Supreme Court of Canada case Antic, the Liberals passed Bill C-75. Although it was intended to modernize the bail system, the effect of this legislation was to allow offenders arrested for violent crimes to be released back on the street fast enough to commit other crimes, sometimes on the same day. In fact, this was an occurrence that I routinely saw as a Crown prosecutor. I would often read Crown briefs noting the accused laughed and bragged to the arresting officers that they would be released in hours.

After receiving numerous calls and emails from my constituents, who shared their concerns about Canada's justice system, I met with the Brantford police chief, Rob Davis, and the president of the Brantford Police Association, Constable Jeremy Morton. It was important to learn directly from them what the root causes are and how we as parliamentarians can address them.

Chief Davis shared with me that it is disheartening to all police officers to see that they are doing their job, they are catching people, they are putting them before the courts, they are asking that they be held in custody but they are being released. He said that criminals are brazen and are laughing at the current justice system. He said oftentimes, they are getting back home before the officers do, and the next thing he knows, they are committing twice as much crime. It is a telltale sign of the level of brazenness among criminals. He also reflected on how the system has dramatically shifted and said that criminals' rights have now superseded the rights of victims.

For years, Canadian law enforcement worked hard to build trust in the police and give victims a level of security if they came forward, and the perpetrator was put into the justice system. Now, everything, according to him, is upside down. The Liberal soft-on-crime approach, he says, is bringing the justice system into disrepute, and the concern that law enforcement now has is that if society loses faith in the justice system, we may find ourselves in a situation where citizens will decide to take things into their own hands.

I never thought as a parliamentarian that I would be quoting Oprah Winfrey, but on her show, every Christmas, she would have giveaways. She would point to the audience and say, “You get a car”, or they got another gift. That is precisely what has happened with the Liberal government and the Prime Minister given their approach to the bail system in Canada. With the Prime Minister, for the last eight years we have said, “He gets bail. She gets bail. Everyone gets bail”, regardless of the fact that they have repeated criminal offences on their record, regardless of the fact that they have an outstanding charge and regardless of how serious the charge is.

It is a statistical fact that the majority of serious violent crimes committed in this country are committed by a handful of repeat offenders. For example, in Vancouver alone, 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times in one year. That is 150 arrests per person, per year. Brantford Police Chief Davis further spoke on this issue and stated that we have entire neighbourhoods that one or two bad apples will terrorize as repeat violent offenders.

The data published by Statistics Canada clearly shows that between 2008 and 2014, under the Harper government, Canada witnessed an annual decrease in the crime severity index. From 2015 onward, this trend changed dramatically.

Since the Prime Minister took office, the number of crimes has grown year after year. Violent crime has gone up 32% in one year. Gang-related killings have gone up 92% since the Liberals formed government. In 2021, there were over two million police-reported Criminal Code incidents, marking an increase of 25,000 incidents since 2020.

Since the fall of 2022, tragically, five Canadian police officers have been killed while on duty. With hundreds of murders in 2021, one Canadian was murdered every 10 hours throughout the year. The 2020 data shows that Canada's homicide rate is roughly double that of the U.K. and France, and four times higher than that of Italy.

Even though the Prime Minister and his government are claiming that Bill C-75 was meant to clear the backlog of people waiting for bail hearings, experts say it has done much more than that. Essentially, the government has told judges dealing with bail applications that they need to make sure anyone accused of a crime is released at the earliest opportunity and on the least serious conditions. Let that sink in. Primary consideration is for the accused, not for the victim and not for society at large. Some judges and justices of the peace feel that the bill has put shackles on them and has resulted in an increase in releases, even by violent offenders.

Last month, all 13 premiers sent a letter to the Prime Minister calling for amendments to keep more people in custody as they await trial. This call was supported by police chiefs, police associations, mayors and provincial attorneys general from coast to coast to coast. Recently, the Toronto police chief opined on the issue of bail reform and argued that only judges and not JPs should be allowed to hear bail cases when serious gun charges are involved.

A multipronged approach to bail reform is required. According to the Supreme Court, everyone is entitled to a speedy trial. However, it can often take years to get to trial. We need to speed up the system so that when criminals show up in court, the judge knows they will get a speedy trial and may be less inclined to bail them out.

The Liberals said they were open to discussions, but that has been their position since the provincial justice ministers raised that issue last March, almost a year ago. Instead, the government has been busy passing Bill C-5 and Bill C-21.

This January, a judge in my riding of Brantford—Brant said that my hometown community is “plagued by gun violence—murders caused by guns and people walking around with firearms. It never used to be as prevalent as it is today.” She said, “Now it’s an epidemic”, and that the Crown should get tougher on offenders.

To put it into perspective, the Liberals and the NDP have ignored the real way that most criminals get their guns under Bill C-21. They eased bail conditions for serious violent crimes under Bill C-75 and decided to put the safety of victims at risk with Bill C-5. The Conservatives have been calling for a balance to the justice system and bail reform for years, but the Liberal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada continues to defend the current system.

I have a very quick primer on bail. Bail legislation reflects the fundamental principles outlined in Canada’s charter that attempt to balance the rights of the accused by upholding the presumption of innocence with public safety and confidence in the system. The law allows for people who are deemed risky to be detained for certain indictable offences, or when confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by releasing a person into the community.

Canada needs bail reform now to pull back from the failed views put forward by the government. We cannot continue to endanger our communities by letting repeat violent offenders walk freely on our streets and simply wait before they harm somebody. How much more blood needs to be spilled on our streets? How many more police officers need to lose their lives before the government finally acts?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I do agree with her that this is a complex issue.

This morning, we are talking about public safety and crime in our streets. One of the big problems we have been talking about for months is the presence of illegal guns in our communities. I agree that this morning's motion will not solve anything. It is yet another populist motion.

Still, the Liberal government is not doing much to crack down on illegal guns coming in. Do not even talk to me about Bill C‑21. It does address some things, but it does not address this problem.

Does my colleague agree that more should be done at the border to stop illegal arms trafficking? Is she applying pressure on her party from the inside to make something happen?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a happy new year. I know that February is a bit late, but this is one of the first times we have seen each other this year. I would also like to wish my constituents, the people of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, a happy new year. I will begin by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

I am very pleased to speak to this issue, which I believe is exceptionally important. Law and order is obviously an area that we, as members of Parliament, are concerned about.

I agree with my Conservative colleagues on several aspects of this motion. In the past eight years, violent crime has increased by 32% and gang-related homicides by 92%. The number of violent crimes has skyrocketed, inevitably jeopardizing Canadians' safety. Five police officers were killed in the line of duty in just one year. That is enormous when compared with previous years.

In Ontario, 44 police officers were killed in the line of duty between 1961 and 2009. That is about one per year, and, in my opinion, that is one too many. In 2022, five police officers died while on duty. That is not just too many, that is totally unacceptable. The people who undertake to protect the public should never pay with their lives.

In this respect, I am in complete agreement with my colleagues, and I must say that the efforts made by the Liberal Party in recent years to prevent violence, limit the number of firearms in circulation and help break up gangs have been less than stellar.

It would be wise to try not to get lost in the statistics. There are many statistics out there, and they support some of the facts included in the Conservatives’ motion. Overall, the number of crimes reported by police in Canada in recent years shows an alarming increase.

Hate crimes have increased by 72%. These are mainly crimes motivated by hate towards a religion, sexual orientation or ethnic origin.

Gun crimes have risen 25% in the past 10 years. As I was saying earlier, there were more murders in Montreal in 2021 than in any of the previous 10 years. Some 37 murders were committed, compared with 28 in 2020, with 25 being the result of a dispute or settling of scores within organized crime and 12 involving Canadians between the ages of 12 and 24.

In 2021, police reported 34,242 cases of sexual assault. That is about 90 cases of sexual assault for every 100,000 citizens, keeping in mind that only about 6% of sexual assaults are reported to police.

Let us not fool ourselves: This increase in violence is not just a big-city problem. In my own rural riding in the Gaspé, in Eastern Quebec, a man was arrested for weapons trafficking in Pointe à la-Croix barely three weeks ago. He allegedly supplied illegal weapons and narcotics to Montreal street gangs. In 2021, a raid in Gaspé led to the seizure of multiple illegal firearms, more specifically, 50 long guns, 10 handguns, bullet-proof vests and ammunition of every calibre. Last August, shots were heard in a residential neighbourhood in Gaspé, and an individual was arrested.

The picture we are painting here is pretty grim. The government must take concrete and legitimate measures to address Canadians’ concerns and to ensure their safety.

In its motion, the Conservative Party calls on the government to repeal the elements enacted by Bill C-75. Although it is true and entirely legitimate to point out that certain elements of the bail reform are problematic, as we have seen in the news recently, the fact remains that the wording of the motion is also problematic. Some elements are simply false.

Let us be clear: No changes made by Bill C-75 require any judge to release violent repeat offenders. With all due respect, saying otherwise, intentionally or not, is more of an opinion than a proven and verified fact.

To say that the bail system is no longer working is also not entirely true. The bail system is based on the art of finding a balance between public safety and the presumption of innocence, which is protected by something that is quite dear to the Conservatives, specifically, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Bloc Québécois had a number of good reasons to vote in favour of Bill C-75, even though, as we said, given recent events, we can now see that the legislation has its flaws. I am sure that my colleague from Saint‑Jean will elaborate on this idea because she is an extremely competent and seasoned legal expert. I will be happy to just go over some of the facts that were checked and quantified.

While the convicted offender population has been gradually declining in recent years, the number of people held in pre-trial detention almost tripled in the past 35 years. This increase occurred while the overall prison populations remained relatively stable during the same period. In fact, the crime rate had been falling since the 1990s.

Under the law, there were more innocent people held on pre-trial detention than actual offenders serving custodial sentences, after being convicted, in provincial and territorial correctional facilities since 2004-05. This data is widely available. It comes from an analysis conducted by the Department of Justice in 2015 in connection with Bill C-75. My colleagues should therefore be able to obtain the report and base their decisions on those facts, which were checked.

We must keep in mind that, financially speaking, a growing population in pre-trial detention will result in considerable additional costs for governments at every level. This only places more pressure on already limited resources.

The debate surrounding the bail system is perfectly legitimate, and it is a good thing. On this point, once again, I agree with my Conservative colleagues. Bill C-75 has several flaws, as the provincial premiers unanimously pointed out to the federal government. Basically, they are asking for the same thing as one of the elements included in today’s motion. They claim that it is justifiable to strengthen bail laws so that people who are prohibited from possessing firearms and are then accused of a serious firearm offence cannot easily get bail. I think that some work could be done in this area.

This inevitably leads me to the actions that the government should take to prevent gun crime. We have said it often enough: Bill C-21 does not necessarily fix the problem of the proliferation of firearms. I was happy to be able to discuss this with the minister. Other actions must be taken in other areas.

More specifically, we need more border controls and prevention measures in large cities. Obviously, financial investments must be made, and the government always enjoys showing off its financial record in this area. However, there are other things that can be done, and the Bloc Québécois has presented several options, for example, collaborative efforts between the various police forces. There are a lot of things that can and should be done.

Although we agree with the Conservatives on several aspects of this motion, the idea of strengthening legislation is rooted in the ideology of law and order. Right now, the proliferation of firearms in our major cities is a problem, we cannot say it often enough. Although this reflex reaction is understandable, a number of experts, including Carolyn Yule, a professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Guelph who studies the bail system, claim that there is no evidence to suggest that a harsher approach to bail would improve public safety. I think that is something to think about.

Given that the text of the motion moved today includes elements that may not have been fact-checked and that could potentially turn out to be false, it is impossible for the Bloc Québécois to support this motion, unfortunately. As I said, we agree with several aspects, and the government must do more. It is true that crime has increased in recent years, but unfortunately, because of certain elements in the motion, we cannot support it.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear the minister's stance on this important issue. We have been working together on Bill C‑21.

Gun violence is top of mind these days. While Bill C‑21 addresses some of the issues, it does not address them all, unfortunately. Most importantly, it does not do anything about the proliferation of firearms.

In 2022, Montreal's murder rate hit a 10-year high. Something must be done, and it is the federal government's responsibility, because it is in charge of borders.

During interviews, the minister has said more will be done in addition to Bill C‑21. What exactly does he have in mind? Will he make it happen fast? We cannot go on having murder rates that keep going up year after year. Concrete action must be taken to prevent gun violence.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for the opportunity to have this important debate about bail reform. Before I come to the remarks that have been prepared for me in advance, I want to take a few moments to acknowledge the grief, trauma, loss and the sense of suffering being felt by communities across the country. I had the chance to visit with many communities, whether it was out west in Vancouver or out east in the Atlantic communities with the families and the victims in Portapique and Truro.

More recently, it was in Quebec City, with all the families and survivors at the commemoration of the sixth anniversary of the mosque shooting.

It is also in my hometown, where we are seeing a recent spate of violence in our public transit system. It is imperative that we have a thoughtful discussion based on a number of pillars. Yes, we need to take a look at our policies and our laws.

I want to commend the Minister of Justice for many of the reforms he has advanced to improve the administration of justice so that we can focus on serious offenders who do, in many instances, need to be separated from the community for protection. Also, I want to underline the work that he and our government are doing to address many of the systemic challenges that have led to overrepresentation in federal incarceration facilities, as well as provincially, when it comes to indigenous peoples and racialized Canadians. We cannot have these discussions in isolation.

I have grieved with families. I have grieved with the community of law enforcement officers who have lost five of their own. We owe it to them and to every single Canadian to make sure we are informing our discussion on the basis of principles that are underlined in the charter, but equally by the experiences of those who have suffered. It is in that spirit that I hope we can have this debate today.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, has spoken about an openness to receiving proposals with regard to the bail system. I have worked on the front lines of the criminal justice system. I have seen how these laws are applied in a very real, practical and tangible way. Even as we navigate the proposals being put forward by the various constituencies, including the law enforcement community, I hope all members will appreciate that there is no one cure-all for the challenges we face. We need to take a look at the entire suite of laws and policies, not only with regard to bail but also with regard to how we are tackling gun violence.

There is a bill currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Bill C-21, which would equip law enforcement with additional tools to tackle gun violence by raising maximum sentences against hard traffickers and by giving law enforcement additional surveillance tools to interdict the organized criminal networks that would seek to traffic illegally firearms that make their way into our country, potentially to be used in violent crime to terrorize our communities.

We also need to take a look at the other investments the government is making to support law enforcement in keeping our communities safe, including a $450-million allocation over the last few years for CBSA. That will enable law enforcement agencies to acquire the resources, the technology and the techniques that they need to build on the progress that they have made in the last two years where they have seized a record number of illegal firearms.

Beyond those investments, I do think it is important as well to talk about prevention. One of the challenges I find around the debate on public safety is that we place great emphasis on laws and policies. We talk about Bill C-21. We talk about the acts that have been passed, and led and shepherded by my colleague, the Minister of Justice. We talk about Bill C-75, which, by the way, was a piece of legislation aimed at addressing the systemic and chronic backlogs in our court system so we could focus on the most serious offenders who commit the most serious crimes and pose the most serious risk to public safety. That was the genesis of Bill C-75.

The purpose of Bill C‑75 was to reduce the case completion times.

To hear some colleagues from the Conservative Party mis-characterize that bill as catch-and-release legislation does a disservice to this debate. We do not need slogans; we need concrete solutions. I would submit to the chamber that this is precisely what the Minister of Justice and this government have been doing. I would also say the same thing with respect to Bill C-5.

We heard a colleague from the NDP point out that the last time the Conservative government had the reins of government, it introduced a number of policies that were reviewed and then struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. We do not need a return to the failed policies and overreach, which detract and diminish from the independence of the judges to assess on the merits and based on the facts and circumstances of each offender who comes before them. What we need is a thoughtful, constitutional approach to this matter, and that was the point of Bill C-5. It was not to promote catch-and-release policies, which has been overly simplified and distilled. That may play well on YouTube or in social media, but, again, it does a disservice to the complexity of the challenges that are faced when it comes to keeping our community safe.

As we focus on laws and policies, we do not talk enough about the underlying root causes. We do not talk enough about the need to provide additional support for mental health care, homelessness and poverty. We do not talk enough about the need to provide additional skills, experience and confidence to those who are most at risk of being exposed to criminal elements, which I have seen across the country and in my own community.

When I had the chance to travel to James Smith Cree Nation and grieve with those families, community members told us that they knew their own, that they knew how to ensure they could take care of them and put them on the right footing. It is only through collaboration and partnership with those communities through initiatives like the building safer communities fund, a $250-million federal initiative that is administered out of Public Safety Canada, that we can start to address these challenges at the root cause so we can stop crime before it starts.

In the context of the debate we are having today, we need to put as much emphasis on looking at preventative strategies, which we can work together on to advance, to see crime come down. No matter which side of the debate we are on, no matter which party we belong, no matter which constituency we represent in the chamber, the one thing I am assured of is that all Canadians are unified behind the common cause of wanting to reduce gun crime, wanting to reduce any kind of violent crime, which may find its stem in the systemic challenges that I have discussed. We need to come together to have that debate and not resort to slogans, bumper stickers or any of the other catchy phrases that we heard in the to and fro of the heated debate in the chamber, but have an actual and thoughtful debate that is based on facts and constitutional principles. That is precisely what I hope we can do today.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in today's debate on Bill C‑239, which deals with a promise that the Conservative Party itself proposed in the summer of 2018.

We also moved a motion on February 5, 2019, here in the House, on this clear and legitimate request from Quebeckers and the Quebec National Assembly, specifically to cut the paperwork burden on Quebeckers significantly by allowing them to file a single tax return.

On April 24, 2021, all of my Conservative Party colleagues voted for this measure in Bill C‑224. The single income tax return responds to a request that is dear to the hearts of the people of Lévis—Lotbinière and all Quebeckers. All Quebeckers are required to file two tax returns as soon as they start earning an income, even if they have not reached the age of majority. This noble and legitimate request will save a lot of time and money for Quebec families and all Quebeckers. It is important to note that Quebec is the only province in Canada that still has to take on this onerous task.

Whether it relates to this bill or any other measure that would be good for the Quebec nation and the entire Canadian population, nothing seems to make the Liberal government lift a finger since it came to power in 2015, because saving time and money is simply not one of its values and is not in its DNA.

Let me give a real-life example of when all my children were still living under the same roof at home. At the time, it meant 14 individual tax returns for one house, plus two returns for my small farm. Think about it, that is 16 tax returns under one roof. That is a lot of repetitive and counterproductive work forced on families, students and young workers, who are eager to be active in the workforce, which is in need of labour now more than ever.

True to their values, Conservatives have always been committed to simplifying the lives of Quebeckers, saving them time and money, and increasing their quality of life.

We cannot shy away from certain words. We are living under a coalition government, and this cronyism between the Liberals and the NDP is disastrous for all Quebeckers and Canadians across the country. This arrangement is damaging our democracy and prevents any good measures from being adopted. We saw proof of this when the NDP and the Liberals voted against Bill C‑224, sealing its fate.

We saw further proof recently with my private member's bill, Bill C‑215, which got a majority but may not be adopted at third reading because the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are still refusing to give it a royal recommendation. I would like to remind members that my bill would extend EI benefits for people with serious illness to 52 weeks, a fix for outdated legislation that has not been amended since 1971.

There are a lot of good bills here, including the one before us now, Bill C‑239, which is perfectly valid. However, we have a major problem in the House after eight years of Liberal incompetence that is now making itself felt across Canada and in every sector.

Our Canada is broken. It will never be like it was before. We are experiencing the repercussions of lack of leadership and political will to bring positive, long-lasting change to the lives of people in Canada.

Under the Liberals, life has become very expensive. Inflation, taxes, crime and drug deaths are on the rise. Honest citizens like hunters and farmers are being attacked and penalized by Bill C‑21. We have a Liberal government that will do anything to help its cronies get funding and contracts in exchange for a $500 ticket to a dinner. The Liberals managed to legalize marijuana and now want to decriminalize hard drugs. However, when it comes to helping honest people who work hard, day in and day out, people who are responsible, or people who are seriously ill and simply deserve our support, there is no danger of Liberal favouritism. There is no danger of giving these honest people a free ride. We hear more than a simple “no”. It is a resounding “no” to anyone with common sense and logic, and this is all currently endorsed by the NDP.

This government is really old, worn out and outdated, not to mention fundamentally incompetent.

I remember all too well the Liberal argument against adopting a single tax return in Quebec. I can already see the return of the stale rhetoric of the Minister of National Revenue—we just heard it. The House has already heard responses using the simplistic argument that having a single tax return would result in massive job losses, which is unfounded and, moreover, would happen at a time when there is a dire need for labour across Canada.

I would also like to remind the minister and my colleagues that the number of public service jobs has increased by 32% from 2015. My constituents write to me to tell me that they can no longer make ends meet, have no savings, are using food banks to feed themselves and their family, can no longer afford their rent, have to work when sick or, even worse, have to declare bankruptcy. Like them, I am very worried about our future and that of our children and future generations.

The aspirations of Quebeckers are eroding after eight years of Liberal incompetence. The single tax return that has been a Conservative election promise since 2018 will still not see the light of day, I am afraid. The NDP has to go back to being an opposition party and stop propping up the Liberal government. We all know that the 32 Bloc Québécois MPs are not the ones who can make the change that Canada really needs.

I am proud that the people in my riding, Lévis—Lotbinière, trust me and the leadership of the Conservative Party to put an end to the Liberal incompetence that we have seen for eight years now—eight years too many. The Conservatives are the best equipped to work for a more productive Quebec, a stronger Quebec, a richer Quebec, a Quebec that is a partner in Canada's success, a Quebec that is proud of its culture and heritage, a Quebec that is worthy of the French language, a Quebec that is respected by the Conservative Party of Canada for what it has achieved. The Conservative Party is a proud partner in the success of all Canadians from all provinces.

Historically, the Conservatives have said yes to Quebec's requests. We said yes to the construction of the new Champlain Bridge, yes to the future third link in Quebec City, yes to more power over immigration for Quebec and yes to a single tax return. That is more than a promise of change or lip service. It is a real commitment, a promise that I have been keeping every day in the House for 17 years now, along with my Conservative colleagues. I say yes for Lévis—Lotbinière and yes for Quebec.

Firearms

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, and I hope all members will have seen, this government is engaging with hunters, trappers, first nations and indigenous groups to make sure that their experiences are woven into the good work that we are doing under Bill C-21, which, of course, is to target those guns that have been used in mass killings.

We couple that with the work that we are doing to stop illegal smuggling at the border, which was $450 million. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it. We couple that with the work that we are doing to prevent gun crime, a $250-million building safer communities fund. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it.

Look beyond the words and look at their actions. They need to reverse their course and support the government's work to keep Canadians safe.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we promised Canadians that we would take action and tackle gun violence.

Our plan includes investing nearly half a billion dollars to stop illegal smuggling at the border, addressing the root causes of gun crime through the building safer communities fund, and introducing legislation that promotes the responsible use of firearms, specifically Bill C-21.

That is why I hope the Conservatives will reverse their position, support our investments and support common-sense legislation.

Liberal Party of Canada

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, everything in this country feels like it is broken. However, do not take my word for it. Let us use the words of the Liberals who are confirming this.

The member for Yukon called out his government's attack on hunters in Bill C-21. The member for Avalon called out the Liberals' carbon tax on home heating. A 25-year Liberal MP from Toronto is so frustrated with her Prime Minister that even she is calling him out publicly. The former minister of sport said that she was disregarded when it came to stopping abuse in sports. We have the Minister of Canadian Heritage now fighting with cabinet colleagues over another botched appointment. We also cannot forget the member for Louis-Hébert, who called the Prime Minister out for wedging and dividing Canadians when it came to COVID.

Everything in this country feels broken because the Liberal caucus is broken. If it cannot get its act together, the solution is simple. Just step aside because the Conservatives on this side are united and ready to go.

Public Safety

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal government took office, violent crime has increased by 32%. There have been 124,000 more violent crimes under its watch.

Who are the primary perpetrators of these crimes? They are repeat offenders and drug traffickers with illegal guns. What is the Liberal solution? It is to remove mandatory minimums and target law-abiding hunters and firearms owners, people like this retired RCMP officer who has four handguns that were carried by his grandfather and father during both world wars. Unfortunately, due to the Liberals' handgun freeze, keeping them in the family is no longer possible.

Meanwhile, recent victims of gun violence include a 17-year-old killed in broad daylight and another police officer murdered by a repeat offender out on bail and prohibited from owning a firearm. After an armed robbery this past weekend, the regional police chief stated, “This violent incident was avoidable. Two of the arrested in this incident failed to adhere to the conditions of their release on previous charges. This is why we must pursue bail reform.”

Considering these disturbing facts, the Liberal government must withdraw its soft-on-crime Bill C-5, make bail reform a priority, and withdraw Bill C-21.

Speaker's Ruling

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I also have pending amendments with respect to Bill C-21 before the House. We know that the events, as described by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, are absolutely what occurred, and I would support the request.

I know it is unusual for the Speaker to have anything to do with procedure at the point of clause-by-clause consideration in a House committee, but in this instance, I think what is happening is almost unprecedented.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to raise a point of order regarding an amendment to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). As stated on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

The amendment in question, G-4, would amend clause 1 of Bill C-21, and the New Democrats have been clear in expressing our opposition to this amendment. The amendment seems to target those who use guns for hunting, for protecting farm animals from predators and for supporting safety in the backcountry. What is more, we have all heard from indigenous people that the amendments would not respect treaty rights nor the duty to consult.

Bill C-21 was originally intended to limit the number of handguns on our streets. Before the amendment was introduced, there was every reason to believe that Bill C-21 was on track to passing through this House before Christmas, but instead, the amendment was introduced at the eleventh hour with no ability to question witnesses about its impacts. It is a more than 200-page amendment to what was originally a 44-page bill. In our view, that constitutes an abuse of process. We are not asking the Speaker to judge the merits of the amendment. Instead, we are bringing forward a very important procedural point.

We believe, contrary to the committee's findings, that this amendment seeks to expand the scope of the bill as established at second reading since it addresses a new idea that was not considered at second reading.

The amendment is out of scope because the original Bill C-21 was meant to implement a handgun freeze. This amendment would drastically expand the definition of “prohibited firearm” in the Criminal Code to cover all sorts of long guns, including those commonly used for hunting and farming and by indigenous communities. This House never had a chance to debate this measure at second reading.

When the amendment was moved on November 22, 2022, the committee chair deemed that it was not beyond the scope of the bill. This decision was appealed, and the committee voted in favour of the committee chair's decision.

However, as we saw in the very clear Speaker's ruling on November 16, 2022, regarding amendments to Bill C-228, the ultimate decision on the scope of a bill rests with the House itself: “The Chair would like to remind members that the scope of a bill is not determined by its sponsor, by the government or even by the committee considering it, but by the House itself when it adopts the bill at second reading.”

In this situation, the committee adopted amendments that the Chair ultimately struck from the bill during consideration at report stage, because you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the amendments were beyond the scope of Bill C‑228 as passed by the House at second reading. Although we realize that the Speaker usually does not rule on a matter that is still being debated in committee, we believe that in this particular situation your opinion is necessary and important.

The committee has been stuck for weeks debating this amendment, which is, in our opinion, out of the scope of the bill. It is possible that you would rule the amendment out of order at report stage, which would make the hours of debate at committee completely unnecessary. It would be in the interest of all parliamentarians to avoid the waste of time and energy spent debating an amendment that would ultimately be removed from the bill.

Justice

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-21 on firearms, law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to hunt, but criminals will be able to continue terrorizing our streets.

Meanwhile, the provincial premiers are unanimously calling on this Liberal government to take immediate action to strengthen Canada's bail system.

In December, a police officer was killed by a criminal who had been granted bail even though he posed a real threat to society.

Will this Prime Minister stop playing politics with the safety of Canadians and do what needs to be done?

Firearms

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Bloc Québécois are totally out of touch when it comes to the safety of Quebeckers. They are working together to criminalize law-abiding citizens, while allowing criminals to roam free in our communities.

Bill C‑5, which was passed with the Bloc's support, allowed a criminal to avoid jail time this week despite being arrested in possession of two fully loaded guns. In addition, Bill C‑21, which the Bloc Québécois also supported, directly attacks Quebec hunters.

Why are they so out of touch?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

It's Friday, actually, not Thursday.

We talked about having the correctional investigator come to talk about his report. If we have an extra meeting.... If we get the Russia study out—which is obviously our priority—and finish it on Tuesday, that might be an option.

I would have to go back through my notes to see what we were thinking of doing prior to getting into Bill C-21, but I know that was one of the things we talked about doing.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's nice to see everybody back after our long absence.

It has been a relief to see what's taking place this morning because, when I was back in my riding, I heard a lot about Bill C-21. I was just talking with my staff this morning about the number of emails we are still getting about it.

I have multiple questions about how we got here. I'm happy we got here; don't anybody get me wrong. There must have been some light that went off or a moment of realization during the holidays.

Mr. Noormohamed discussed before we came in today that he went in and got his PAL. I hope that's not a secret, Mr. Noormohamed. I'm breaking your bubble on you, but there it is. Maybe you learned something there or maybe you heard from the hunters in that room as to how happy or unhappy they were about this. I was certainly hearing it day in and day out. Good for you for educating yourself on that issue.

I also know that the minister did a large, cross-Canada tour discussing it with many hunting groups. I saw many of his pictures. It looked like he was definitely dressed up for the weather in many of them. I read some of the clips. I don't think he was received warmly at all of his stops. It sounds like he was perhaps getting a bit of an earful.

I agree with my co-member here, Mr. Motz, about the two hours to have the minister in, because I would like to hear about some of those discussions he had. We've talked about doing a Canada tour. Our members opposite weren't too keen on that. Your minister did that for us, which was interesting because before Christmas we were all told that the tour would not be beneficial. It was interesting to see the minister do such a large tour. That's the exact same thing we wanted to do.

Once again, it's nice to see this getting taken out. There will be a lot of hunters and farmers, not just in my area but across Canada, who will be relieved to see this.

I do believe we need to have the minister here for two hours. One hour just isn't enough. We see what can happen with time, like this morning. We had problems getting our equipment set up. That could easily turn into half an hour.

Mr. Motz, you mentioned it, but I think we need a subamendment. You didn't put it in the subamendment. Did you?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the comments.

I think it's important that Canadians understand.... I just heard Mr. Noormohamed, and I trust that he was genuine in moving forward on this bill, but we need to look back at why we had this in the first place.

It's because the Liberals did exactly the opposite. They failed to respect people's rights. They failed to consult indigenous people. They failed to consult with farmers and hunters. They failed to do any of that, and they tried to push some legislation through that didn't go through debate in the House at all. It didn't get studied at committee. It was thrown in at the 11th hour during an amendment in the clause-by-clause phase of this bill. I don't think Canadians will forget that.

I hope there is no iteration of any of what was in G-4—other than ghost guns—and G-46 that comes back under Bill C-21 again. This is because Canadians—where I come from and across the country, and I've heard from thousands of them—have lost trust in this government on this issue and many others. I believe them. I believe these people. I've seen for myself.... I struggle with trusting the motivations behind what comes out of this government's legislation.

If we're talking about true public safety, I don't think there will be any opposition in this committee on matters that actually make a difference for public safety and that target those who are committing crimes in our country. Namely, these are criminals who smuggle their firearms in and use illegal firearms, not those who are part of Canada's law-abiding firearms community.

As we go back into Bill C-21, I am hopeful that we keep in mind the sport shooter community and the airsoft community on some of these amendments that have to happen. I am hopeful, as you said, Mr. Noormohamed, that there is a spirit of co-operation on this committee moving forward on that.

The other thing that I'm struggling with is why we wouldn't want the minister here for a two-hour meeting. I don't think an hour is enough. He's had a significant role to play in this. It's reasonable that he comes to explain why we find ourselves in this spot, and why G-4 and G-46 were pushed forward in the first place.

I don't hold fellow committee members from across the way in contempt because of it. They're doing what their party asked them to do. However, I think the minister needs to answer for what happened and why G-4 and G-46 were put into this bill at the time that they were.

The last thing I would add is that I also support the idea of making good use of our time on Tuesday and Thursday until we can get witnesses here to continue on with this study. The Russia study, as you said, Ms. Damoff, would be an appropriate use of our time.

I think we're going to be hard-pressed to get the witnesses who have to be here in four meetings. There are a lot of them, on all sides of this issue, and I think there will be some great witnesses whom we need to hear from. I'd personally like to see more than four meetings and, certainly, two hours with the minister, not one.

Thank you.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues and, in particular, to Ms. Michaud for bringing this forward.

I like your timeline, Chair, in terms of witnesses. I think it would give us the opportunity next week at a meeting that we could have on Tuesday to finish off our Russia study. We probably all have forgotten where we even were with it, but if I recall, we had only about an hour or two left to finish that.

Then we could listen to organizations put forward from all parties to make sure we're listening.

We hear you. We think it's important to get this bill right. There are a lot of really good things in Bill C-21, but even the gun lobby has made comments about what the definition of a “military-style assault weapon” is. I would like to hear from people with suggestions on that. Is there a way forward to make sure that we're getting this right?

This is a big step forward, and I think we need to be listening to each other. I hope Canadians are heartened when listening to the conversations around this table, where all four parties are agreeing to work together, co-operate and actually listen and hear each other. I can't guarantee that we're going to agree on everything moving forward, but we certainly are agreeing on where we are today.

I again thank Madame Michaud for the changes and, in addition, for having the minister come for one hour, because I think that's adequate to where we are.

Thank you to everybody.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, thank you to my Liberal colleagues. Amendments G-4 and G-46 really derailed any kind of progress that we could have made on Bill C-21. I have never seen such a groundswell of opposition coming from everywhere, really, all at once. There were some big questions about the procedural admissibility of expanding the original scope of the bill. With today's developments, we can get back to some constructive dialogue in looking at the original Bill C-21.

When you look at the package of amendments that we still have to go through, we still have a lot of work ahead of us. I agree with Mr. Noormohamed: We absolutely have to get ghost guns right. This is an increasing problem for law enforcement.

There are also some really important amendments that we have to debate—and, hopefully, pass—with respect to the yellow flag and red flag provisions of the bill. We know that the airsoft community is waiting patiently as well.

When I agreed to the 106(4) meeting, of course, we were at that time wondering about amendments G-4 and G-46 specifically. That's why it was important to have—in my opinion at the time—eight meetings and travel, so that we could get consultation, the consultation that we weren't able to have as a committee. With those being withdrawn, I still think it's going to be valuable for us to have additional meetings. It might help flesh out some of these concepts for us, so I will agree with what Ms. Michaud is proposing.

For Mr. Lloyd's benefit, the reference to the one hour was amending the original part that is a specific reference to the minister. Rather than four hours with the minister, it's one hour.

I think we're arriving at a consensus here. I will leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Noormohamed, for tabling his motion. The proposed amendments were problematic. We said so from the beginning. The Bloc Québécois is always in favour of prohibiting military-style assault weapons. However, our opinion is that the proposed amendments went beyond the scope of Bill C‑21.

We're still determined to cooperate on this bill, which deals with handguns. However, it would be useful to hear from additional witnesses. They could tell us, for instance, how we could proceed with prohibiting ghost guns and maybe military-style assault weapons. However, that might go beyond the scope of Bill C‑21.

I am inclined to be cooperative as we move ahead. I'm looking forward to restarting study of this bill, once we've heard from additional witnesses.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Just to be clear, Mr. Chiang would have done this, but his headset is not working. I just want to make sure that's also stated. It reads as follows:

That in relation to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), amendment G-4, currently under consideration by the committee, be deemed withdrawn; and that amendment G-46, which has not yet been moved, be deemed withdrawn from the package of amendments.

It is not our intention, as I noted, to move amendment G-46.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On a point of order, I'm going to seek unanimous consent of the committee for the following motion. I move:

That in relation to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), amendment G-4, currently under consideration by the committee, be deemed withdrawn; and that amendment G-46, which has not yet been moved, be deemed withdrawn from the package of amendments.

Just to be clear, it is not our intention to move amendment G-46.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome back to meeting number 54 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We resume once again, acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. I am calling from the traditional unceded territory of the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm people and the shared traditional territory of the Katzie, Tsleil-Waututh and Stó:lō people who have called this land home since time immemorial.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The meeting is public.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee commenced consideration of the request by at least four members of the committee to discuss their request regarding the need to rehear witnesses on the proposals contained in amendment G-4 to Bill C-21.

I remind you that our last meeting on December 13, 2022, was suspended; therefore, no new notice was published and distributed.

The debate on December 13 was suspended on the amendment as amended, moved by Ms. Dancho on the original motion of Kristina Michaud.

The text of the amendment and where we are in the subamendments was distributed by email yesterday afternoon.

I see, Mr. Noormohamed, that you have your hand up. I believe you have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's correct. If we adjourn, this matter is closed and we carry on with another Bill C-21 clause-by-clause next time.

A motion to adjourn has been made.

Online News Act

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, the fact that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc support the bill gives me confidence that our opposing it is the right position to take. Quite frankly, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals supported the amendments to Bill C-21 until very recently when they started to hear from their constituents.

What I pointed out was the hypocrisy of Liberal and NDP members standing in this place and talking about this magical hoovering up. I kept hearing that the tech giants are hoovering up all of this advertising revenue when no one was forcing Liberal and NDP members of Parliament to give Facebook and Google money from their members' operating budgets to pay for advertising. That was the part I was pointing out. There is a hypocrisy in crying about that and at the same time feeding the problem.

I will take no lessons from the member on this matter. It is a position that we do not support, and we will be happy to oppose this bill.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

As I said, we are here because of the Liberals not following, as was already indicated, due process. They're bringing a significant amendment to a bill that was already contentious to many Canadians. They've now added a whole new scheme to this bill.

I firmly believe that the Liberals did not decide to throw this amendment in at the last minute. I believe very strongly that when Minister Mendicino made these comments back in May, there were already conversations and already plans in the works to try to manipulate and pull a fast one on Canadians, and now, because of the enormous response from Canadians and from the opposition, they're trying to backtrack and save face. This is a complete sham, to be honest with you.

Firearms have dominated a lot of my email correspondence over the last several weeks. I think we're above 6,000 already. I have not had one in favour of what this government has tried to do—not one. In fact, the majority of the phone calls we've received and the thousands of emails we've received have suggested many things, most of which I can't repeat here. The ones I can repeat are asking this: If the government is so intent on going after hunters, why don't they propose a stand-alone bill? Pull this right from Bill C-21. Let's have the conversation about what Bill C-21 was intended to do, which was to deal with handguns, and let's go back to it.

As Mr. MacGregor indicated in his subamendment, and I agree, we need a substantial number of meetings. I don't want it to be prescribed and remain at eight. Ms. Dancho in her amendment to this bill proposed 20. If the government doesn't have the good common sense to pull this amendment on their own, then the committee has to do the consultative work this government failed to do.

As a result, I don't think eight meetings will suffice either. There are multiple groups from across this country—hunting and sporting groups, industry, indigenous Canadians, you name it—and we're not going to get them all in eight meetings, which will only be 16 hours. Even with two different groups per hour, that won't be a significant number of groups. We'll be able to hear only about 30 groups speak. I think we'll just be scratching the surface.

There's a reason why Canadians don't trust this government. There are many reasons, actually, but this is just another example of trying to manipulate or pull a fast one—or whatever name you want to call it—to get Canadians to buy into something that is their ideological agenda.

Again, I will have more to say on this as we get to the regular amendment. Suffice it to say that while I agree that we need more than two meetings—many more—I am certainly not favourable to trying to get everybody in within a process of eight.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Why are we discussing this motion for about the seventh meeting now? It's because of the mess of the Liberals' trying to pull a fast one on Canadians.

Let's back up just a little bit.

Why did we have this done, and how did Bill C-21 get to this place? It was discussed in the House, and it was debated as a handgun freeze. It was debated as a need to involve the improvement of red flag laws. We saw that it was going to impact sport shooters and many other communities. That was the intent behind what the government said they were trying to do.

When the bill came here, again many people debated it, and all parties were able to debate this bill in the House. None of us were under the impression that it was anything more that what was presented to the House and to Canadians. Then, at the eleventh and a half hour, during clause-by-clause, the Liberals tried to pull a fast one on Canadians. They tried to—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before I get into my remarks, I also want to add my voice to those of my colleagues about the late Honourable Jim Carr.

It's funny how your relationship with a person changes over your parliamentary career. Jim and I are both from the class of 2015. In the first Parliament I served with him—the 42nd—I was often doing battle with him, in his role as Minister of Natural Resources, because of pipeline projects, which negatively affect the coastal British Columbians I'm so proud to represent.

I got to know a more personal side of Jim as chair of this committee. I think you can summarize him as tough but fair, and a very kind-hearted person. I think the people of Winnipeg South Centre were very fortunate to have him as their representative. I know his prairie colleagues, from all parties, will miss him. If his family is watching this, all I can say is that I offer my sincere condolences. The parliamentary family is going to miss him.

Rest in peace, Jim. You were a great chair.

Mr. Chair, I know those are big shoes to fill, but you have our confidence. It's not an easy committee to manage. I think you will be the first to admit that.

Colleagues, we have now had six meetings, at this committee, for clause-by-clause, and we are still stuck on clause 1. We're still stuck on the very same amendment we were six meetings ago. That's hardly a tale of parliamentary efficiency, or an effective use of tax dollars. I think the Canadian public rightly understands that.

I haven't had a chance to put my voice on the record on this, so I'm going to ask colleagues to indulge me for a bit, because I have a few things I want to get on the record.

What I would like to say first is this: In politics, as in life, trust is easily broken, but it's extremely hard to repair. The way this amendment landed has, frankly, been a complete and total abuse of process. The reason why we're hung up here is because we, as committee members, with our limited resources—especially on the opposition side—are now being asked to do a tremendous amount of extra work on a bill that should have been done on the government side.

To land this amendment in our laps at the eleventh hour, after we completed witness testimony.... I had no chance whatsoever to tailor my committee strategy based on an amendment that will affect long guns. I will tell you this. The irony is that—because I know how important Bill C-21 was to this government—if this amendment hadn't been dropped at the eleventh hour, we would be having a very different conversation right now.

We would probably be talking about how Bill C-21 was sent off to the Senate, and we would be conducting important work on Bill C-20. That's being held up by this mess of the government's own creation. Bill C-20 is an important piece of legislation that's going to create much-needed oversight, transparency and accountability in the RCMP and CBSA. That's something we've been talking about for seven years now.

I know there's frustration on all sides, but this was brought about by the government. It should have been anticipated, because it's like the Newtonian laws of politics: For every action, there's going to be an equal and opposite reaction.

I have to tell you that, correspondence-wise.... I have talked to colleagues from all parties, but some members of my caucus had not received one single piece of correspondence on Bill C-21 until this amendment dropped. Now, it's making up half their correspondence. The way it was rolled out is going to be a textbook example, for future generations, of what not to do when amending your own bill, of communication strategy, etc. The list is long.

I need to get on the record about how displeased I am, because I think it took for granted the important work we have been able to do at this committee.

To underline, Mr. Chair, just how egregious this was, as soon as the amendment came to our attention, I had my legislative assistant contact the Library of Parliament, because we wanted to get a sense of how amendment G-4 was going to impact firearms models. We also wanted to get a sense of how the scheduled list was going to compare with the May 2020 OIC. Our analysts, to their immense credit, produced a pretty amazing document. It was a very long Excel spreadsheet. However, they warned us that it was going to be incomplete, because they checked right away with the justice department and they confirmed that there was no such analysis to share with the Library of Parliament.

Here you have a government dropping this amendment in our laps, and its own department has not done an impact analysis. We're expected to suddenly take this work up with our limited resources as the opposition. That is a simple no-go.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I want to reference this, because when Bill C-21 was introduced on May 30, Minister Mendicino—I think it was in an exchange with reporters—made mention of an amendment they were thinking of bringing to the bill. This begs the question why the bill had to be introduced on May 30 if, already at that point, they were thinking of an amendment.

In the very first meeting we had, we had the minister for the first hour and we had departmental officials in the second hour. I have it right here, Mr. Chair. I asked the assistant deputy minister, Talal Dakalbab, in the last minute of questioning I had about the May 30 announcement of the amendment. I asked:

Can you inform this committee what specific section of Bill C-21 you're seeking to amend and what it is going to look like, so we have some heads-up notice on this?

His response was:

The only thing I could say is that you heard the same thing I did from the minister on TV. I can't comment any further on that one. I'm sorry about that.

An assistant deputy minister, on square one, at the very first meeting, was unable to comment on what was eventually going to be a huge amendment to a bill.

After that, given that the assistant deputy minister, a pretty high official in the department, was unable to provide details to me as a committee member—and I'm supposed to do my due diligence on a bill—and was unable to provide that information, I dropped it. I did that because there were other things in the bill—tangential things that I could see and comment on—that I had had the chance over the summer of this year to speak to my constituents about.

I made the effort this summer to visit the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association. I had some very frank conversations with people about the handgun freeze and what that would mean, and I took their comments back with me to try to make some fixes based on that feedback. These are law-abiding constituents who simply want to be able to practise their sport.

At no time, Mr. Chair, did I talk to people about their hunting rifles or their hunting shotguns, because again, that wasn't in the bill. It was not defended by the Minister of Public Safety during his second reading speech. I did not have the opportunity during questions and comments to ask the minister about that. I did not have the chance during my own second reading speech to talk about these things, because they were not in the bill. It is a complete abuse of process.

I have to say, I sit on three committees, and I've seen this happen in other committees, especially with consequential legislation. I'm going to cite Bill C-7 from the last Parliament. That was, of course, the amendments to our medical assistance in dying regime, which added track two for people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

In the debates on that, the first version of Bill C-7 included a continued prohibition for persons who had a mental illness as a sole underlying condition. The government even introduced a charter statement with Bill C-7, explaining why that prohibition should continue, because there was not enough knowledge and there were still some gaps in whether treatments would be effective.

What happened in that process, Mr. Chair, was that the Senate amended Bill C-7. They got rid of that prohibition and introduced a sunset clause, and then the government accepted it. They accepted it, so it became part of Bill C-7, and then they established a committee afterwards. Again, it put the cart before the horse so that we, as a committee, could study something that's already part of the law.

That's exactly what we are being asked to do at this committee. It is a proposed amendment to a very consequential bill and now we're being asked to do it after it's been proposed, again, having had no chance to speak to Canadians, having had no chance to speak to our constituents or any affected group. You can see why there's a strong reaction to this bill. The way it has been rolled out.... Honestly, I think I've said enough on that point.

I will also say that we've had some very helpful testimony from officials here, and they certainly have done their utmost—and I want to salute them—to walk this committee through many of the technical questions. The frustrating part of it is that they are limited to technical questions about the wording of the bill. If I want substantive questions answered about impacts, how this was developed or whether there are other options, they cannot speak to those parts of the questions.

There has certainly been a fair amount of misinformation, and I'll acknowledge, as Mr. Noormohamed has said, that some concerns out there about whether this make or model of shotgun will be on the list have been refuted. But, again, it goes to communication and rollout. The government should have done this from the get-go, to make the Canadian public understand exactly what its intention is.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is that for some makes and models, after the May 2020 OIC was launched.... By the way, let's face it, the section of the Criminal Code that allows for those orders in council has been used by both Liberals and Conservatives, and we do have extreme policy lurches on both sides. For some people who might have owned a firearm that escaped the May 2020 OIC, afterwards they probably said, “My firearm is safe. The government didn't take it.” A lot of these are non-restricted firearms that are now being moved to prohibited. They're skipping a step: They're not even going into the restricted category; they're going straight to outright prohibited.

The government never explored other options. This is kind of the sledgehammer approach. There were never any other options explored. This could have been the homework that was so crucial to be done before the amendment was proposed. Could we have explored options such as tighter licensing requirements for semi-automatic firearms? I understand the concern that's out there. A semi-automatic firearm can discharge ammunition at a much faster rate than a lever action or a bolt action rifle can. I understand there are concerns and yes, there are some makes and models that have been used in horrible crimes. You could find a lot of non-restricted firearms that you could say the same thing about.

There's a requirement, Mr. Chair, for restricted firearms. Handguns all have to be registered. Did the government ever explore that as an option over the concerns that people have with some semi-automatic firearms? Again, we never had the chance to explore a middle ground here to find a compromise, and that's what we, as a committee, are now being forced to do.

There's another thing I want to put on the record, because I think last week's announcement by the Assembly of First Nations was a game-changer. For a government that has, in the seven years that I've been here, talked about how no relationship is more important than that with first nations, the unanimous resolution from the AFN should serve as a wake-up call.

I want to remind committee members that it was in the previous Parliament that we finally passed an act of Parliament to bring Canada's federal laws into harmony with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If you look at some of the articles of the declaration, it says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.

Again, this goes to their relationship with the land, the resources that are on it, and the fact that hunting is not just something they do for fun. These firearms are tools and they provide for their families with them.

There are many other articles that establish that states, like the Canadian state, have a duty to consult whenever they are implementing changes that affect that relationship and affect the way indigenous peoples can practise their traditions on their lands. We're being asked to do the consultation after the fact.

If we look at the actual law that was passed in the previous Parliament, it states that under the act, the Government of Canada will work “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, [to] take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”, as well as “prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration”, and develop annual reports on the progress and submit them to Parliament.

I would submit to this committee that, given the overwhelmingly negative reaction we have seen from indigenous groups, that has not been done. In the House today, when a specific question was asked of Minister Mendicino about the AFN resolution last week, he mentioned that he had spoken to them. That's not consultation with indigenous peoples. I'm sorry, but it's not. You don't announce a policy—an amendment to a bill—and then consult. It happens the other way around. That was obviously not done.

The other thing I want to mention is that we know that Canada, as a state, has a duty under the UN declaration. I don't think that has been met in this case. We haven't had a charter statement issued. I know that for the previous bill, Bill C-21, which was introduced in the 43rd Parliament, the government introduced a charter statement.

Given how expansive this amendment to the bill is—the fact that it is widening the net of what's going to be impacted—I would submit, Mr. Chair, that a charter statement is also needed for this additional section. I don't think a charter statement requirement for this amendment nor compliance with the declaration has been met.

There's been talk about the number of witnesses we need. I absolutely think two meetings are not enough. I think 20 might be too high.

As we've approached this meeting, I've been wondering, what if this had been a stand-alone piece of legislation? If Minister Mendicino felt so strongly about this amendment that he had taken the time to make his case in a 20-minute second reading speech, where we would have 10 minutes of questions and comments to ask him about that and where he could stand in the House to defend why this is a strong idea and why it should be passed in principle and sent to the committee, if that had been the case, then I expect we would have allocated the same number of meetings to such a substantive expansion of firearms legislation as we did to Bill C-71 and Bill C-21.

I would land on eight as a minimum. With eight meetings, I believe we would land somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 witnesses. You'd have to check my math.

We would want to hear from many of the witnesses we've already had on Bill C-21, because again, we never had the chance to ask them about the impact on long guns. We would want to hear from as many indigenous groups as possible. At a bare minimum, we're talking about the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and ITK representing the Inuit up north. I know there's been mention of a premier. We want to hear from many of the provincial indigenous groups, as well.

We never had the chance to talk to the various police forces that were here about what their opinion is about this. In their experience in law enforcement, is this a massive problem? Is the way this amendment is worded going to help them do their job, etc.? The answer to that might be yes, but we never had a chance to get that on the record.

I would want to have people from my own riding. I was talking with a constituent today on the phone. He's owned firearms for most of his life. He's just bewildered by the fact that his firearm is suddenly appearing on this scheduled list. All he wants to do is have his firearm to be able to go out and hunt. He's ex-military. He knows how to handle a firearm.

It goes to the fact that we've never had the chance, as representatives—in our own ridings and across this country—to talk to people. I understand the intent behind the amendment, but it's an abuse of process to go about it this way. If you have an idea as substantive as this, and you're sure it's the right way to go, then do it the right way. Submit it to the parliamentary process, where it goes through a second reading and a full range of committee meetings, so we have the chance to adequately study it, with the runway to do so—where we can consult with legislative counsel, after hearing from witnesses on whether there might be some appropriate subamendments.

Mr. Chair, I would like to move a very small subamendment.

I agree with the Conservatives that travel will be necessary. I think this committee could benefit from having a lot of that hands-on knowledge. I would keep everything related to travel. My only change, Mr. Chair, would be that we change the number 20 to eight. That would be the bare minimum, because it's giving this substantive amendment the same respect we gave the previous bill, Bill C-71, and the current Bill C-21.

I will close there. I think I've put everything on the record that I needed to. Honestly, we are stuck in the mud right now, in our seventh meeting, precisely because of how this was rolled out. I'm sorry to my Liberal colleagues, but the blame for that lies squarely on their shoulders. They created this mess, and they have to find a way to fix it. It's not our responsibility, as the opposition. We're trying our best with our limited resources, but we do not have the vast and powerful resources of a national government with two departments—Public Safety and Justice. We don't have the ability to create broad, national surveys or go out and talk to people. I have me and my legislative assistant—two people. My caucus has less than 10% of the seats, and we're trying our best to find a way forward.

You have to understand that the reaction you're seeing, not only from members of the opposition but also from the public, is precisely because of how this landed. My Liberal colleagues have to wear that and take responsibility for that.

I'll close with that, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure my subamendment was, in fact, moved.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Yes. Thank you.

You know, I haven't been at the committee for a few meetings, but I've been watching very closely the evidence that's been put forward. I want to thank my colleague Madame Michaud for bringing forward this motion and showing a desire to have additional witnesses to look into what I think is just a massive amendment. I wish my Liberal colleagues would show some humility across the way when talking about misinformation and perhaps recognize that the whole reason we're here today is because of an amendment they put forward that does indeed have massive implications in this country.

Moving forward, I think the amendment put forward by my colleague Ms. Dancho is well placed. I remember earlier testimony on Bill C-21, when we had indigenous witnesses come to this committee. They were very clear that they had not been consulted. They did not feel consulted about this legislation. It kind of disappointed me that we moved into clause-by-clause without taking a step back to recognize that, you know, these are indigenous people in this country who have been disenfranchised by this country for over a century, and they're telling us at committee that they were not consulted. These are representatives of first nations and indigenous communities, and this committee just basically took down their testimony and said, well, we're going to move along.

That didn't sit right with me at the time. I didn't know if I was going to have an opportunity to raise this issue, but I think now is a good opportunity to raise this issue. When we spoke to those witnesses, they said it wasn't good enough just to talk to the chiefs. It was noted that one of the Liberal members said, well, we spoke to a chief about this, and they said they thought it was all right.

That's a big mistake. We really need to get into the grassroots with indigenous communities, with first nations, Métis and Inuit. We also need to approach them on their level. I'm not saying to limit it to those groups, because I think there are lots of other groups we need to hear from on this specific amendment. I'm just speaking about the indigenous witnesses for a moment. It's quite a thing to ask that people come to Ottawa from these rural, remote and northern communities. I know that a lot of times there's financial compensation for people to come here, but it's just not feasible for them. We also know that in this country we still don't have a very strong network of rural broadband, which also eliminates....

This leads to the question of capacity. Where there is no capacity, I don't believe there can be consent. I think it would really be essential for this committee, as a sign of reconciliation and good faith, to actually set aside some meetings for this committee to actually go into these communities, within reason. We're talking about Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Iqaluit, Churchill, northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, Vancouver Island and Labrador, just to name a few places. It may not be all those places, but certainly some of those places. They all have merit.

It's important for us to go into these communities and invite these people within their own communities to come to our committee to have their say and be heard by us. I think that would be a tremendous show of reconciliation in this country. I think it would be a tremendous show of willingness to consult with first nations, Inuit and Métis folk who live in rural areas who hunt and trap for sustenance or for recreation.

I really want to lend further support to my colleague's amendment and suggest that there's room for flexibility here if members have specific places they'd like to go or if they think a specific number of meetings is appropriate. I think setting out 20 as an initial proposal is a strong proposal. I hope this amendment is taken in good spirit by this committee.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I, in turn, congratulate our colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for Saturday's happy occasion. I wish her many years of wedded bliss.

I heard my colleague express some concerns about the eligibility of news businesses. I just want to distinguish between Bill C‑21, which we have also been hearing a lot about, and Bill C‑18. Unlike the first bill, in Bill C‑18, the government did not include a list of businesses that are excluded or included.

On the contrary, the bill has a list of criteria that businesses must meet to be eligible. This clause was improved by an amendment that requires eligible businesses to also follow a code of ethics based on fundamental principles of the journalism profession.

I want to know if my colleague, who voted against this amendment with her Conservative colleagues, believes that this amendment actually guarantees that eligible businesses will be serious, rigorous news businesses. I would like to hear what she has to say about that.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to start by expressing, on behalf of all of us, my condolences to Jim's family. I want to share something with this committee before I get into the substance.

I had the chance to speak to Jim on Thursday after his bill was sent to third reading. He said something that I wanted to share with everyone, because it was actually about us. Jim said that, among his parliamentary experiences, working with this committee was one of his greatest joys. He went on to say that it was because we had managed to figure out how to do complicated things together.

In the spirit of that, I am channelling what Jim said to me: “I know it's tough, but you guys are going to get this done together.” I just wanted to share that with everybody. I think that's been a guiding principle for a lot of us in this committee. We've had our differences in how we've come up with things and come through things, but I think it's an important message for us to reflect on as we go into the holidays.

I want to thank my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP for signing the 106(4) and for all of us coming together to do that. I think it's an important step. I think it channels a bit of what Jim would have wanted us to do.

We've said from the beginning that Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. We've also said that we want to make sure that hunters, farmers and indigenous communities are not affected in that process. There have been a lot of conversations in the last few weeks about how best to protect Canadians from gun violence. It's an emotional and complicated issue. A lot of people are counting on us to act in the right way to help prevent gun violence and to make sure we're taking dangerous weapons off the streets.

There's been a lot of discussion about the amendments to Bill C-21, and rightly so. I think this, of course, would create the standard legal definition for what constitutes an assault-style firearm. The definition of an assault-style firearm is a complex, technical endeavour. It's not really something that lends itself to broad generalizations, which is how we seem to want to do politics these days. The gun community, gun control advocates and Canadians of all political stripes have asked for a clear definition so that everyone knows which side of the line they are on.

There's been a lot of misinformation and confusion around this amendment that was presented to the committee. A lot of people have taken advantage of what is not known by others to fan outrage. There's also a lot of misinformation from people who just don't know. I personally had a couple of people reach out to me who said, “Listen, I have this particular gun. I'm concerned that it is now banned.” I went back, checked for them and was able to reassure them that it was not. We don't all have that luxury. I think we need to find a way to make sure that we are able to reassure people of whether or not their guns are going to be on this list.

I think the most important part of this is making sure that we're hearing voices that feel they haven't been heard, so we can hear different points of view to help make this better legislation and dispel some of the myths—and, frankly, so that we can do our job, if we can, to improve this legislation and make it even better. When it comes to working through those guns that are on this list that perhaps should not have been, then we should have those conversations together.

I think before us is a motion that allows us to do exactly that. I think this, if passed, will give us the opportunity to hear from new witnesses, which I think is critical. It allows us to consult broadly and take down the temperature. I think we all want to do that. It allows us to listen to different perspectives and actually have a healthy discussion based on facts.

Now, that said, we've heard from a lot of witnesses already. We've had hours of testimony from government officials. They have sought to dispel misinformation or concerns about certain guns with technical expertise. We may not have liked their style, but they did a really good job of going through the guns that people thought were on the list but that actually weren't. They clarified that for Canadians to give people the comfort that their guns were not caught on this list.

What I would suggest, humbly, is that we use this motion to really narrow down our discussions and iron out the specifics of the amendment. Let's call on people who are informed as to how amendment G-4 will impact the public. Let's try not to get lost in partisanship. Let's actually make sure Canadians have the facts they need. Let's do it in a way that allows voices that have not been heard to be heard. I think that's really important.

I know all of my colleagues and I are committed to working collaboratively to make sure that no guns that are commonly used for hunting are captured within the proposed amendment. We have always said that the goal of this is to target assault-style weapons and not hunting rifles.

I know it's going to take work. I know we have to find ways to bridge the gaps together, but we are committed to doing that work together. We are committed to making sure that we pass a good bill to protect Canadians and get guns off the streets that need to be taken off the streets, and that hunters, farmers and indigenous communities do not find themselves unreasonably impacted by this.

I think we can do it. We have a track record in this committee of getting stuff done. I really think that if we can pass this motion today and get on with the work of ensuring that we get this bill right, Canadians will look to us and accept...I think they will respect the fact that we had healthy debate and we had disagreement, but we got something over the finish line that would protect Canadians from gun crime and protect hunters, farmers and indigenous communities and their ability to go and hunt.

Thank you.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before we start, I also want to take a moment to offer my most sincere condolences to our colleagues for the passing of our colleague and friend, Mr. Carr. We had the opportunity to work with him on the committee for a few months. He will certainly be missed by all. Personally, I learned a lot from this gentleman during those few months. My thoughts go out to his family and colleagues.

I also want to thank my colleagues from the Liberal Party and the NDP for supporting my request. I think we all agree on the fact that amendment G‑4 is quite significant. Some people did not have the opportunity to be heard on the subject and the impact of this amendment to Bill C‑21.

I think it could be beneficial to hear from new witnesses at this stage of clause-by-clause study. I’m given to understand that the Conservatives found my process to be underhanded. Personally, it seemed illogical to follow the same approach I used the day before. Indeed, when I asked for unanimous consent from members to receive experts for two meetings, the response was clearly negative from the Conservative members. That’s the reason why I didn’t consult them about this request, made pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). However, I noted some open-mindedness from my Liberal and NDP colleagues, which is why I consulted them. I am glad they accepted my request.

I appreciate the fact that the committee can ask officials to answer our questions and help us. However, as they said a few times, they cannot go beyond certain limits.

As I said, and I will say it again, if I propose an amendment to a bill, my colleagues will ask why I tabled such an amendment, what I based it on and why I phrased it that way. So, I’m the one who has to answer those questions. I won’t have a few officials at my back to give answers.

I therefore think it’s necessary to have independent experts appear so they can shed light on some issues. It’s necessary to invite groups who did not have the opportunity to appear, because we think Bill C‑21 and amendment G‑4 will have broader consequences than what was outlined at the beginning, when we heard from the first witnesses.

That’s the request I’m making. I asked my colleagues to be reasonable in their debates. I proposed two meetings. I think that will give us the opportunity to hear from up to 12 groups or so, if we hear from three witnesses an hour. That’s close to the norm. So, four hours of meetings seems reasonable enough to allow each party present to hear from the groups they will have contacted beforehand. That is what I propose.

To do this, Mr. Chair, I will table the following motion, which was sent to the interpreters, so that they may read it out in English as I read it out in French. We also sent it to the clerk.

That the Committee temporarily suspend the clause-by-clause study of Bill C‑21 and that it allocate two consecutive meetings to study the effects of Amendment G‑4, beginning at the next Committee meeting; That the Committee invite to testify the witnesses and experts that it deem necessary to hear in order to answer the questions raised by the new concepts added by the Amendment G‑4 and that the Committee proceed according to the usual routine rules for the invitations of the selected witnesses; That upon completion of the testimonies, the Committee resume its clause-by-clause consideration where it had been suspended and proceed according to the usual rules pursuant to Standing Order 75 of the House of Commons.

I’d like to hear my colleagues’ opinion on the matter.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 54 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The meeting is public.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is commencing consideration of the request by seven members of the committee to discuss their request regarding the need to hear witnesses on the proposal contained in amendment G-4 to Bill C-21.

I would also like to take a moment to recognize our former chair, the late Honourable Jim Carr, and I wonder if we could all have a minute of silence.

[A moment of silence observed]

Thank you all.

We will commence.

Madame Michaud, please move your motion. Then, I believe, Mr. Noormohamed would like to respond to it, and then Ms. Dancho.

Firearms

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals could not be more out of touch with northern and indigenous communities. Indigenous leaders at the AFN unanimously oppose the Liberals' amendment to Bill C-21. This amendment is a threat to indigenous and northern ways of life. It is a slap in the face for communities that depend on hunting and trapping to live, people who are facing some of the highest costs of living right now. Bill C-21 was meant to be important legislation to deal with handgun violence, but the Liberals have chosen to play cheap political games.

Will the Liberals withdraw the amendment, stick to the main bill and stand up for northern and indigenous peoples, who are struggling right now?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that we are indeed listening to indigenous peoples. Last week, I spent the better part of a morning consulting and engaging with indigenous leaders right across the country to make sure we protect indigenous traditions, including as it relates to food security.

We are creating space for indigenous-led initiatives when it comes to public safety, and we are going to make sure the language of Bill C-21 aligns with our government's priority, which is to take those guns that were designed for the battlefield off our streets and protect indigenous traditions at the same time.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people deserve to know they are safe from gun violence in our communities. Bill C-21 was an opportunity to limit handguns and protect victims of domestic violence, but instead of protecting people, the Liberals made a last-second change that would unfairly impact hunters, farmers and indigenous people and the tools they use for food security and protection.

Concerned constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith want to know when the government will listen and clean up this mess.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that we are doing precisely that, including with Bill C-21, which would raise maximum sentences against hardened gun traffickers and give police additional powers to bust up those networks that terrorize our communities.

We also introduced $450 million over the last two years for the CBSA to stop illegal gun smuggling at the border. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it.

They have got to walk the talk on this. The Conservatives have reversed their position, and they should support Bill C-21 and all of the support we are offering law enforcement on the front lines.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a young man who was caught with a prohibited weapon loaded with 72 rounds of ammunition managed to avoid prison thanks to a Liberal law, which of course was supported by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. There is no longer a minimum sentence for this type of crime in Canada. On the one hand, the government lets criminals roam free and, on the other hand, it wants to penalize honest gun owners by passing Bill C‑21. Talk about a double standard.

Will the Liberals go after the real criminals and leave hunters alone?

Public Safety

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week we saw in the House how divisive Bill C-21 is. I believe that everyone in the House wants to ensure that Canadians are safe. In 2021, 173 women and girls were killed in Canada. We must always stand up against violence against women, but I cannot stand and watch a government mislead survivors and victims' families.

We must work towards a violence-free Canada. Bill C-21 is targeting the wrong people. We must have stronger, safer communities, free of illegal guns, free of violence against women. Members of the LGBTQ+ community and indigenous women and girls must be violence free, as must every Canadian. Femicide in Canada has increased and violence against women has increased, but crime in Canada has also increased.

Rather than making bad policies and dividing communities across Canada, I ask the government to do better. Its policies are failing. It should scrap Bill C-21 and actually consult. Make a real difference and make Canadians safe.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill S-8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The bill before us seeks to make several changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The bill proposes to reorganize existing inadmissibility provisions relating to sanctions. This proposal is to establish a distinct ground of inadmissibility based on sanctions that Canada may impose in response to an act of aggression.

When Russian dictator, Putin, invaded Ukraine, the world watched in horror. A democratic country, in a region of the world where I and so many other Canadians have family roots, was being shelled and attacked with hostile aggression.

Since the invasion of Ukraine commenced in February, the Government of Canada has imposed sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act, also known as SEMA, on over 1,000 individuals in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. However, these sanctions on their own were not grounds that would have been enough to prevent those friends of Putin from gaining citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status in Canada. Bill S-8 serves to correct that loophole.

Bill S-8 also proposes to expand the scope of inadmissibility based on such sanctions. It recommends to include not only sanctions imposed on a country, but also those imposed on an entity or a person. Such sanctions are becoming more and more common as we see dictatorial governments where the citizenry need not be held accountable for the tyrannical actions of the dictator in charge.

The sanctions against the country, although beneficial to show Canada's opposition to the actions of a rogue government and practicality, have the largest negative impact against those citizens. It is those citizens who now will bear the weight of a corrupt dictator and face the unintended impacts of our sanctions.

Bill S-8 would also expand the scope of inadmissibility based on sanctions to include all orders and regulations made under section 4 of SEMA, the Special Economic Measures Act.

It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to provide the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, instead of the immigration division, to have the authority to issue a removal order on grounds of inadmissibility based on sanctions under the new paragraph 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This gives me pause. I understand the value of having the ability to have the Minister of Public Safety step in and become involved should the situation warrant it, but the current minister is certainly not a beacon of responsibility, accountability and trust.

Let us not forget that it was the current Minister of Public Safety who, in his previous position as the minister of immigration, was responsible for failing to protect the Afghan interpreters that Canada relied upon in the war in Afghanistan.

Let us not forget that it was the current Minister of Public Safety who introduced the strongest emergency legislation in Canada against his own citizens when he invoked the Emergencies Act to avoid meeting with freedom convoy organizers who came here to be heard by the government.

Let us not forget that it was the same minister who was having his Liberal colleagues turn Bill C-21 from a ban on law-abiding handgun owners and sport shooters into an all-out targeting of hunters, farmers and indigenous Canadians.

If I were to go through all the failures of the current Minister of Public Safety, I would need more time than I have, but I know my colleagues are eagerly waiting to speak. I can take solace in knowing that the powers in this legislation will belong to a Conservative Minister of Public Safety after the next election, but I digress.

Currently the laws of Canada do not directly specify that international sanctions are a basis upon which we can reject permanent residents, citizenship or refugee applications. We do have faith in our bureaucracy to make the decisions that need to be made to protect Canada and the enjoyment of citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status. This new framework would provide it the ability to make clear and direct decisions that would completely implement the will of Parliament and fully utilize existing laws, like the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, also known as Canada's Sergei Magnitsky law.

Bill S-8 also practically ensures that no sanctioned individual could appeal the actions taken against them and their application for citizenship, permanent residency or refugee status due to the vagueness of the laws. Without Bill S-8, the bureaucracy could not simply disallow an application on the grounds of the applicant being a sanctioned individual. Now they need to go through a more untraditional process of excluding them for the actions that put them onto the sanctions list, which can lead to vagueness in the rejection.

We know these sanctioned individuals typically are coming to Canada with ill-gotten gains. They therefore have the means available to them to hold up the process, litigate the decisions and not only tie up our courtrooms and appeal processes from those deserving of them, but also cost the Canadian government and taxpayers time and money dealing with these processes.

I am glad the government has finally taken the time in the House to implement the Magnitsky act in a manner that would give it some teeth. Conservatives are supporting this bill. We have always strongly supported sanctions against individuals, entities and countries that threaten the national interest or international law. We have been critical of cases where individuals with ties to prescribed organizations, but who are not necessarily on a terrorist list, have been allowed entry to Canada. We have always put the national interest first with respect to questions of citizenship and immigration. Conservatives have strongly supported the Magnitsky act.

Canadians should not worry sanctioned individuals are seeking to enter our communities when so many legal, law-abiding applicants are waiting to immigrate. Our allies must also be assured we will uphold our sanctions.

In closing, this legislation was introduced, as was mentioned previously, in the Senate in May of this year. It was passed through the Senate in under a month. That is including first reading, second reading with debate, committee stage, the report stage and the third reading with debate.

The Liberal government introduced Bill S-8 to the House of Commons on October 4, and now, on December 12, it finally gets floor time. We wonder why it took the Liberals so long to close this gap in our immigration law. What has been the hold up? It would seem the Liberals have run out of debt-inducing legislation and have decided to use these final few days before Christmas to move forward with the legislative priorities of Canadians.

Judges Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to speak to Bill C-9 today. I know this is always an interesting topic, and I have spoken to it at the other stages along the way.

I commend the Liberals for taking on the issue of judge accountability. It seems like an interesting topic for me, given the fact that Conservatives are often critical of the decisions made by judges across Canada. We find their leniency to be annoying. We find the overturning of the mandatory minimum sentencing to be frustrating, and all of those kinds of things, therefore we think there needs to be accountability for judges along the way.

Then there is the issue of comments made by judges in public. We have seen that become an issue. There are also the actions judges may take in their personal lives that are beyond the pale. It is frustrating to the public that folks in a position of authority and a position of stature in our society would behave in such a manner. These are all areas in which we need to have a level of accountability.

The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke talked about the independence of the judiciary. That is an important principle, and the bill would maintain that, for sure.

The bill does a good job around personal behaviour accountability and accountability for comments made by judges outside of their role. It would not necessarily deal with accountability in terms of making judgments and things like that, so I would suggest perhaps there is an opportunity to go forward from here.

We will be supporting the bill. It is a good first step. We have heard from folks across the country around the appeals process. Conservatives put forward recommendations to not make the Supreme Court the final appeal process, but to make the Federal Court of Appeals the final appeal process, and I would have supported that as well.

Ensuring accountability for judgments is an interesting and more complicated area. For as long as I have been here I have been trying to come up with a solution for not only maintaining the independence of the judiciary but also having some sort of accountability for judgments made that are not in line with what the Canadian public agrees with. We have seen this very recently around sexual assault and people who are intoxicated. We have seen horrendous judgments from judges in that respect.

I understand there is the notwithstanding clause here, so that Parliament can pass legislation to clarify a judgment. However, we have seen how the Liberal government has been loath to use the notwithstanding clause and has condemned other governments for using it. The notwithstanding clause is an extreme measure, and it also comes with a five-year renewal process. I do not think that is necessarily a good process.

One of the more fascinating items that has come to my attention, and I throw this out there as more of a possibility, is around judge selection by having a panel of judges put forward. As I understand it, cases are generally assigned to particular judges along the way by a chief justice of sorts. There are jurisdictional regions from which cases come that are assigned to particular judges.

There might be an opportunity for the movement of culture within the decisions that are made by judges to put forward a panel of judges rather than one particular judge. Similar to jury selection, both the prosecution and the defence would then agree upon a particular judge. If three judges were put forward in a particular case, out of the three, the prosecution and the defence would have to agree on a particular judge.

That may in fact be the free market of judges, so to speak, a selection process that would ensure judges' accountability. Judges who were making poor judgments would not get as many cases, therefore it would be a kind of corrective action. I am not a lawyer. I am an auto mechanic, so there may be huge holes in this argument, but it seems to me that it is one way of providing judge accountability without going after the independence of the judiciary.

If this place deals with judges and their inaction or their overturning of laws, because there is an interface there, that would be problematic. Putting politics into the judiciary would also be problematic. We want an independent judiciary, and that is very important. I want to reinforce that. I just put forward the idea around the panel of judges and the judge selection process as a possible opportunity for another mechanism for judge accountability.

I am now going to turn my focus to more broader justice issues in this country. We saw the lowering of sentencing across the board in Bill C-71 and now in Bill C-5. We see how the removal or reduction of sentencing has led to an increase in violent crime across the country.

Folks come to me often about rural crime in their communities and how that seems to be on the increase. Some of it is not so much to do with the laws. The laws have not changed a great deal over the last seven years, but the attitude has. That is really what frustrates me about the Liberals. The Liberals' lack of emphasis on justice and their emphasis on the rehabilitation of the criminal but not on aid to the victims or survivors are the kinds of things that have really frustrated me. There is also the lack of taking seriously the crimes that happen in our communities.

I totally understand that there is a host of things, from our prison system to our justice system to our laws, that come into play. Then there is the administration of all of it. When people feel that the system will work, that their cases will be heard, that justice will be had and, if they are victims of crime, that the person will be taken out of their communities or their property will be returned to them, then there is an appetite to participate.

If none of that is seen to be happening, there is an increasing issue of people not being interested in participating in the justice system. That goes in either of two directions. It goes to desperation in terms of not feeling like their country cares for them, but it also goes to vigilantism, where people take things into their own hands.

The Liberals have completely failed in the administration of justice. It is mostly an attitudinal thing. It is not about the particular laws or the system. It is a lot about where they place their emphasis. We have seen, since the Liberals have taken power, that rural crime and violent crime across this country have been on an upward trajectory. That is because victims do not feel that they will get restitution for the problems they are facing. Criminals do not feel they will be held accountable either.

Constituents contacted me about some pickup truck rolling into their yard. They went outside and there were people stealing scrap metal or copper right out of their yard. They confronted them, and the criminals said to call the police and asked what they were going to do about it. That is exactly what is happening in our communities. It comes from the tacit support for the movement to defund the police, from the lowering of sentencing across the board and from the lack of concern for the victim.

It is not a funding issue. We hear the Liberals saying all the time that they have more funding for all of those issues. It is not the funding that is the issue. It is the attitude. We see it over and over again.

The case in point is probably the border security issue that is tangentially attached to this. Under the Conservatives, we spent a lot less on border security. We also did not have a big problem with people coming across the border illegally. People understood that if they came across the border illegally, we were turning them right back around. When the Conservatives were in government, that was the case. That is my major frustration.

Last, I will talk a little about the firearms situation in Canada.

The Liberal government has let the veil slip. It has been trying to ban, confiscate, make illegal and criminalize firearm ownership in this country, full stop. The Liberals always deny that. They always say they are not doing that. However, they have now let veil slip and have put in an amendment to Bill C-21 that includes hundreds of hunting rifles. They were caught, and now they are saying they did not mean to and did not understand.

The Liberals are the ones who say they know how to define firearms. They are the ones telling us they have the experts on their side. They are the ones who said they paid for all the studies.

If they have done all of that hard work, how come hunting rifles are ending up on the list? They are ending up on the list because the Liberals have let the veil slip. They have been after everyone's firearms, not just the handguns, which we were fine with. We said that if they were going to do this, they were going to do this. We do not think criminals should have firearms.

However, when it comes to hunting rifles and farmers having the tools of their jobs, that is where we have drawn the line. We now know what the Liberals' plans are when it comes to firearm ownership in this country. They want to ban it. They want to criminalize it. They want to confiscate the firearms of everyday Canadians. That is extremely worrying.

This particular bill is about judge accountability, and I commend the Liberals for it. I did not think they had it in them to bring forward a bill on judge accountability. I am happy they have. I think judge accountability is something we need to ensure continues in Canada. I have put forward another mechanism for judge accountability, and I am looking forward to having more discussions on that as well.

However, I am concerned that the issues this country faces around justice and law and order do not come from the particular laws and systems that we have in this place, but from the soft-on-crime attitudes of the Liberals and their lack of concern for public safety. This has caused a dramatic decrease in the safety of everyday Canadians, with the running wild, the unaccountability and the lack of fear that we see from criminals in this country as they operate on the streets of Canada.

That is what I hear more and more from Canadians across the country. Criminals operate with impunity. People ask me about this all the time. Why do these criminals operate in broad daylight? Do they not fear the police? They do not.

We hear from Canadians over and over again that these criminals fear nothing in Canada. They do not fear the judicial system. They do not fear our police. We need to ensure that our police forces have the political backing to do what they need to do to take these guys off our streets. We have to make sure that the justice system takes these criminals off the streets and puts them away for a long time to ensure that our streets are safe. If we do not have safety in our communities, we do not have anything. That is the reality.

Safety and security are the fundamental building blocks of a stable and strong country, and we must maintain that as we watch other things fall apart in this country. That starts with the justice, law and order issues in this country, not to mention the inflation issues, the border security issues and the inability to get a passport. There is a whole host of other things that are falling apart.

We need to ensure that our justice system works and that we feel safe to walk around the streets of Canada. Therefore, I will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to questions and comments.

The Environment

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order arising from question period. The member for North Island—Powell River said during QP that the Liberals were solely responsible for the mess of Bill C-21, when in fact the NDP voted with the Liberals on time allocation. I would like to—

Firearms

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, we have heard from many northern MPs, who live in different realities from many of us in urban centres. We know there have been concerns. There has been some misinformation on Bill C-21. We know the committee added two extra meetings to make sure we are getting it right, because we always want to make sure we are respecting indigenous hunting rights. Our government will continue to do that. We know it is a constitutional right, but it is also the right thing to do.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, Nunavummiut need to hunt to feed their families and to protect themselves from dangerous predators, such as polar bears. Bill C-21 was about getting handguns off the streets, but now with this last-minute amendment, the Liberal government has shown how out of touch it is with the daily lives of Nunavummiut. My community is worried and confused.

When will the government stop playing political games and ensure indigenous communities can protect themselves from dangerous predators like—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, opposition to the Liberals' proposed ban on hunting rifles and shotguns is growing. Yesterday, the Assembly of First Nations issued a declaration opposing Bill C-21 because it attacks treaty hunting rights. The Liberal government claims that there is no relationship more important than that with indigenous peoples, but it failed to consult with first nations, Métis and Inuit.

When will the Liberals admit that they failed to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and scrap Bill C-21?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, as a first nations person, I know that hunting is a constitutional right that is integral to many nations. Bill C-21's intent is to ban handguns and assault weapons, like AR-15s, full stop. There has been some confusion and there have been some concerns raised, but the committee will get it right.

We will always respect indigenous hunters and their right to pass on that knowledge to their children, like I plan to pass on to my son.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals promised they would keep people safe from handgun violence. However, at the very last second, the Liberals added an amendment to Bill C-21 that is not about keeping our city centres or children safe, but instead would hurt rural and coastal communities. This bill was supposed to protect people, not go after hunters, farmers or indigenous peoples.

Will the Prime Minister listen to the outpour of concerns and clean up his mess?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, veterans, indigenous people and hunters are contacting my office with serious concerns about the last-minute amendment to Bill C-21, and yesterday, the AFN voted unanimously against it. The government needs to listen and reverse course. It feels like a target on rural communities and has distracted from the original purpose of the bill.

It is time for the Prime Minister to see his mistake and fix it. Will he?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is clear the Prime Minister and his Liberal front bench have again been caught trying to divide Canadians for political gain.

Adding hunting rifles to Bill C-21 proves that the Prime Minister and his cabinet govern for themselves. First nations leaders from across our country are voicing their concerns with the sneaky and underhanded amendments to Bill C-21. Where was the consultation? Are constitutional rights to hunt and harvest for sustenance to be protected? Why is the Liberal government criminalizing a way of life?

Every time questions like these are put to Liberals, they claim Conservatives are spreading misinformation. Yesterday, the Assembly of First Nations' Special Chiefs Assembly passed an emergency motion opposing the Liberal hunting rifle ban. Are the Liberals going to stand up today and accuse the AFN of spreading misinformation, or will they just admit to all Canadians that they are guilty of covering their incompetence with deception?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

First and foremost, I think we can acknowledge that it is entirely within their discretion to come out with that type of resolution. Clearly we've heard from partners. I have heard from partners about concerns with respect to Bill C-21 as recently as today and yesterday, particularly in side conversations I had at the AFN. That's work we will do with indigenous partners. The Prime Minister and Minister Mendicino have also signalled that, and they look forward to that engagement.

We know that long rifles in particular are used to sustain hunting practices and for food initiatives and sustainability. That's work we'll be doing.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing. It's always a pleasure to have you here.

Minister, a few hours ago, the AFN came out against Bill C-21. Will you be supporting the AFN's call for amendments to be made?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments to rebut some of the things my colleague from Kings—Hants said.

In terms of my question, which was pretty direct, from 2019 to 2021 Canada had the second-highest increase in its gross debt-to-GDP ratio out of 33 countries covered by the IMF, behind only Japan. Our gross debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 87.2% to 112.1% in 2021, an increase of 24.9 percentage points. Given that the Canadian government has accumulated more debt as a share of our economy than nearly every other country in our peer group, the expectation would be that Canada's economy fared better than others during this period. This is incorrect.

Despite leading our peers in debt accumulation, Canada did not outperform our peer group in economic growth during the pandemic. Canada had the 11th-lowest real GDP growth, 5.2%, in 2020 and the 12th-lowest real GDP growth, 4.6%, in 2021. Canada also did not outperform its peer group by achieving lower unemployment during the pandemic. Canada had the third-highest unemployment rate, 9.58%, out of 33 industrialized countries and the eighth-highest unemployment rate, 7.43%, in 2021.

I get that these numbers are a lot of numbers that just came out at everyone, but I put these numbers on the record to debunk the myth that the Liberals keep on trying to portray, that they somehow went into the pandemic later than everyone else and came out sooner. That is simply not the fact.

They spent more than every other country in the world but Japan, and our citizens are not better off. The proof is in the pudding, as 1.5 million Canadians in one month used a food bank to put food on the table for their families. That is a failure of leadership by the Liberals.

Students at universities across our country are staying in hostels or needing to use a food bank to eat or, like in my alma mater, the University of Regina, actually fundraising so students do not go to bed hungry, asking alumni for money to help feed students.

Another thing I am looking forward to is splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris and hearing what he has to say about a private member's bill he brought forward last Parliament, which still has not been implemented.

On the topic of not doing what Canadians need, I would like to talk a bit now about agriculture and the agriculture file.

My colleague from Kings—Hants left a bit of wiggle room on Bill C-234. I know he had some positive things to say about it, and I am very interested, because all the Liberal members voted against the bill in committee. As the chair, he did not have to vote, and I am really excited to see how he votes and if he is going to stand with the agriculture producers in Kings—Hants or with his party whip, whether he will be voting along the party line or voting for the people who sent him here.

I am very much looking forward to that vote, because I think that over the last couple of weeks a few members on the Liberal backbenches are starting to feel a bit of pressure when it comes to either supporting the carbon tax or supporting the amendments at the report stage of Bill C-21. I am looking forward to seeing if some of the rural members from the Maritimes or Newfoundland or some of the members from Alberta and Manitoba are going to support these gun amendments that criminalize law-abiding firearms owners, or if they are going to support their constituents and make sure their voices are heard in the chamber. There are a few votes on which I am really looking forward to seeing what some of the Liberal members in the back rows are going to do.

This motion is about making life easier and more affordable for Canadians. We hear in our offices across the country that one of the biggest strains now on families is going to the grocery store and trying to make sure they have enough food to put on the table.

Some of these increases are staggering. I get pictures sent into my office of what $100 buys now at a grocery store. It does not go a long way for a lot of these families. Some of the reasons are that fish is up 10.4% to purchase; butter is 16.9%; eggs, 10.9%; margarine, 37.5%; bread, rolls, buns, 17.6%; dry or fresh pasta, 32.4%; fresh fruit, 13.2%; oranges, 18.5%; and the list goes on: lettuce, 12.4%; potatoes, 10.9%.

These are a lot of staple foods for families. Our household is no different from anyone else's. We have three growing children. They are five, seven and nine, and they are starting to eat more and more. Like a lot of other families, we are seeing our grocery bills continue to climb, and these are the things that we need to have solutions for.

As members of the House of Commons or as public servants, we have to look for how we can ease this inflationary pain. One of the things we can do is get together and take some taxes off the prices of these fruits and vegetables and everyday essentials.

We also had a motion brought forward a couple of weeks ago to take the carbon tax off home heating, which is quite reasonable. Some of the members across the way voted in favour of that motion, and I thank them, including the member for Avalon, for voting in favour. I appreciate that very much, because he was listening to his constituents. It is incumbent on us to remember who brought us here. Former premier Wall always said that these are not our seats, that these are the seats of the constituents and we are just caretakers for a while, because someone else will come and take them. I think a few members are remembering that, and we appreciate that support very much.

When it comes down to erasing the carbon tax on the price of groceries, it is pretty much unanimous in the House of Commons that the price of groceries is too high. We are just trying to figure out how to deal with that situation. Also, the price of groceries is high because that carbon tax hits our producers; it hits the farmers and it hits the trucking industry. At each link of a supply chain, the carbon tax continues to increase the price of goods. That is something we are trying to get through to the members across the aisle and get through to our Liberal, NDP and Bloc colleagues. It is not just a one-time hit; it continually makes things more expensive.

We saw from a recent report that a 5,000-acre farm, by 2030, will pay $150,000 in carbon taxes per year. I grew up on a small family farm in southwest Saskatchewan. We had dairy and beef, and we made our own hay. We had 2,000 acres that we combined. They are not big farms. I do not know anyone who farms 5,000 acres who can take a $150,000 hit year after year. Unless common sense prevails, the only outcome for these family farms is bankruptcy.

The Minister of Agriculture was at the agriculture committee, and I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The minister was there for ministerial estimates, and I asked her to give me a definition of what a family farm is. She could not. Some Liberal members have not been on a farm and do not know agriculture. They see it as big corporate agriculture and big business, but 95% of the farms in Canada are still family farms.

The minister was taking the family out of the family farm and said that families are still okay, but it is the farm that is getting taxed. That is not a thing. The family farm is one unit. It is a package deal. Those two cannot be separated. Some are incorporated and some are not. One thing we learned through CERB was that sometimes a family farm that is not incorporated missed out on some programming.

I will leave members with this, when it comes to the rising cost of inflation. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, said himself that the increase in spending by the government has had an effect on inflation.

One more thing that is really going to hit us hard, now that the interest rate is 4.25%, is that people are going to start losing their homes. I have friends whose mortgages have gone up $750 to $800 per month. That is over a $10,000 increase in what they will have to pay for their mortgages over a year. Families, farm families and everyone in between are squeezed hard enough. They cannot absorb that $10,000 hit. They cannot absorb that $1,000 hit on their grocery bill. We in the House of Commons are going to have to come to the realization that one cannot get blood from a stone. We have to give tax breaks to Canadians.

Firearms

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's proposed amendment to Bill C-21 has become a textbook case on what not to do. This change was brought in at the 11th hour, with no consultation and no testimony. It has distracted from the original purpose of the bill, and it hurts rural communities.

Hunters, farmers and indigenous communities are outraged that some of the rifles and shotguns they use to provide for their families could be banned. The Minister of Public Safety blindsided Canadians when he made this mess. How is he going to fix it?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing our Prime Minister hates, it is diversity, the diversity of opinion. He goes after anyone he does not agree with by insulting them, harassing them and restricting their rights.

His latest target is law-abiding firearm owners. He is banning thousands of firearms used for hunting, while giving gangs and smugglers a free pass. The PM should spend more time up in a tree stand and less time standing against hunters. The Liberals have missed the mark on Bill C-21. When will they stop targeting law-abiding hunters and farmers?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just moments ago the Assembly of First Nations, which represents indigenous people across Canada, issued a declaration publicly opposing the Liberals' Bill C-21. This Liberal hunting gun grab is not only a threat to the livelihood of hunters, trappers and sport shooters but a violation of the treaty hunting rights of all first nations.

When will the Prime Minister end his attack on law-abiding hunters and indigenous treaty rights and stop Bill C-21?

Border Communities

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, border communities have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic and have yet to fully recover. Partly this is due to the shutdown of NEXUS centres, which has created an over 300,000-person backlog.

NEXUS allows commuters, workers and travellers into the U.S. and Canada to cross rapidly, which is essential to the trade between both of our countries, the largest economic relationship in the world.

In addition, the Windsor border blockade was a threat to our national economy. It cost municipalities nearly $6 million in policing costs to remove it. The federal government has yet to reimburse the city, leaving local taxpayers on the hook for a national security action and thus becoming a delinquent deadbeat.

Even on Bill C-21, the Liberals have demonstrated ineptitude by not providing the necessary resources for our CBSA officers to stop gun smuggling.

Ignoring our border communities is poor short-term policy that will have long-term consequences for our economy.

Hunting

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to highlight the importance of hunting in our rural communities. Although I am not currently a hunter, I do enjoy wild game meat. Venison and moose meat are my favourites.

For my Franco-Ontarian community, I know that the tradition of hunting is rooted in its way of life. Whether it is back home, in eastern Ontario, or in the north, when hunting season arrives, time stops and people head for the woods.

In 2012, the current Prime Minister declared in Hawkesbury, where I was born, that the long gun registry was a failure. We have never targeted hunters with our legislation, including Bill C‑21. It is not unusual for certain amendments to be debated at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I salute the efforts of Liberal, Bloc Québécois and NDP members to ensure that hunters will not be mistakenly subject to this law.

Hunting is part of a legitimate way of life.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

How would black powder firearms be affected by Bill C-21?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

How many of these would be affected by Bill C-21?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

You can appreciate that, for many people, a mushy definition is unsatisfactory. I know that my friends across have been asking for some time, as have we, for some clarity around some of these things. If I understand correctly, do Bill C-21 amendments not actually start to give us something that looks like a definition?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Right.

Let's now talk about Bill C-21 and this amendment and classifications. How would these classifications change on the basis of Bill C-21 or the proposed amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, once again. I welcome you all to meeting number 53 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms.

The committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration, but before we resume debate, I will now welcome, once again, our officials who are with us today. From the Department of Justice, we have Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; and Murray Smith, technical specialist, Canadian firearms program.

These names are starting to roll off my tongue very easily. Practice makes perfect.

Thank you for joining us today once again. Your participation is very important for the committee members.

(On clause 1)

We are resuming debate on amendment G-4. At the time of adjournment, Mr. Noormohamed had the floor, and he will continue. Following Mr. Noormohamed, we will have Ms. Dancho, followed by Ms. Damoff, and there's another long list coming.

Mr. Noormohamed, if you please, the floor is yours.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak recently, after the whole Michael Geist thing, so it is really good to have him here, intervening on a really dubious point of order.

In any event, we have a government that is prepared to forsake a number of Canadian jobs. Those Canadian jobs, when it comes to LNG, could have gone to Canada. Instead, they went to Qatar.

When we talk about trust, we talk about transparency. I hope I get a question from the Liberals, because I would love for them, in the preamble to their question, to answer who the 11 people are. Let us talk about transparency by default. Who are the 11? They said transparency by default and sunny ways were what we were going to get. No, we have not gotten sunny ways. We have not gotten transparency by default. Who stayed in the $6,000-a-night hotel room? Again, it is transparency by default and sunny ways.

The Auditor General's report says we are talking about $27 billion, and the government says it completed its stated aims. That is like saying our stated aim was to start a campfire. We started a forest fire, but that campfire got lit, so we did what we set out to do. That is absolutely ridiculous logic. This is why I do not have any trust in the government.

Let us imagine what we could do about illegal guns with $27 billion. We have Bill C-21, in the mess that it is. We have information that, in my view, is not accurate in Bill C-21 about law-abiding hunters. Again, where is the trust?

Firearms

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to get an answer to my question.

Once again, the government has shown that it does not have its priorities straight with its amendments to Bill C‑21. Hunters and farmers in my riding are extremely concerned about their ability to put food on the table and, more importantly, to protect their livestock from predators and other threats.

When will the government stop targeting law-abiding gun owners and finally go after the real illegal gun traffickers?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Liberal firearms expert Murray Smith at committee if hunting rifles would be banned as a result of Bill C-21, he answered, “Yes.” Since then, we have heard from thousands of law-abiding firearms owners and hunters across Canada. They are rightfully angry at the Prime Minister for giving them misinformation about his Liberal plan to ban hunting rifles and shotguns.

My question today is not to the Prime Minister. Instead, it is to all the rural Liberal MPs across the way. Will they stand up for their law-abiding firearms owners and hunters today or bow to this out-of-control Prime Minister?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to Bill C-21 have caused great concern in Newfoundland and Labrador. Many in my province are avid hunters, either for sport or to put food on the table. This past year, 28,000 of the nearly 70,000 law-abiding gun owners hunted moose back home. I would like to know if the Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador will take the same stand as the Liberal MP for Yukon.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the answer is that the Conservatives are.

The reason is that we have been consistent all along in that we are not targeting law-abiding gun owners. We are not targeting guns that are commonly used for hunting. Rather, we are targeting guns that have been used in some of the worst mass shootings in this country's history, including at Polytechnique, where yesterday, the Prime Minister, a number of colleagues and I were able to grieve and stand in solidarity with those victims from Polytechnique.

I think we need to be united behind the cause of doing better in honour of the legacy of those victims, and that is precisely what Bill C-21 would do. It is high time for the Conservatives to reverse their position and support that bill.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been saying for weeks that the Liberal government is going after the tools used by hunters and farmers with Bill C-21, but the Liberals called it fearmongering and misinformation. They say that it is not a hunting rifle ban.

However, the Liberal MP for Yukon has publicly said that he will vote against Bill C-21. He agrees with Conservatives on this, and I know there are many more rural and northern Liberal MPs who agree with us as well. Therefore, who is spreading misinformation? Is it the Prime Minister or his rural MPs? Who is lying?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we are doing precisely that, including some of the provisions within Bill C-21, which will give additional tools to police, including raising maximum sentences to go after hardened gun traffickers, and including $450 million to bolster resources for CBSA to allow it to build on the record number of illegal gun seizures.

Those were provisions the Conservatives either voted against or filibustered. If the Conservatives were serious about protecting our communities from gun violence, they would reverse their position and support these measures so we can go after the criminals who have been terrorizing our communities for far too long with guns.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the greatest memories that I have are my time whitetail deer hunting with my grandpa Jack, my father Kim, my brothers, my friends and my sons. There is little that is more rewarding than spending precious time with family and friends in the field, sharing laughs and creating stories to share for many generations. It is not about the hunt. It is about spending time with the ones we love.

The Liberal government wants to take away this incredible opportunity for generations to come to carry on this legacy, by introducing legislation to make lawful duck and deer hunters' tools and farmers' tools illegal. The sneaky tactics introduced in Bill C-21 are one more example of a Liberal government that is out of touch. Frankly, it has no clue whatsoever what it has introduced, let alone the freedoms it is stripping from the hands of law-abiding Canadians. Levi is my grandson, and I will not accept that he will not get the same opportunity with his “Pip”, me.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Beauce on his speech. I respect the member a great deal and hold him in high regard.

We are actually on the same wavelength on several issues that he raised in his speech.

Towards the end of his speech, he addressed the issue of Bill C-21, which is currently being studied and has many people talking. Hunters are very worried about it. I was a little disappointed to hear him getting into semi-false information about the list of prohibited weapons allegedly directly affecting hunters' rights. That is not entirely true. It is true that we have work to do on Bill C‑21, which is far from perfect. The bill is actually a bit sloppy in some respects. However, I wish everyone would stick to the facts.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the health care situation. In Beauce, like everywhere else in Quebec, the health care system is sorely strained. I would like to hear what he has to say about the government's management and the issue of increased health transfers, which the provinces and Quebec have long been calling for.

[Paula Clarke]

I think perhaps the best way to go about explaining G-4 is to step back a little and perhaps discuss how firearms are prohibited through the Criminal Code.

Section 84 of the Criminal Code sets out a definition of a prohibited firearm and lists some physical characteristics. It also has an ability to prescribe firearms as being prohibited. Some of the physical characteristics are short-barrelled handguns, fully automatic firearms and sawed-off shotguns.

The regulations have been in existence since the early 1990s. From 1990 to 2000, there were approximately 13 families of firearms that were prohibited in the regulations. On May 1, 2020, an OIC prohibited an additional 1,500 makes and models of firearms. There are 109 families. It also prohibited two categories of firearms based on physical characteristics. Those are the firearms that are 10,000 joules and over, and firearms with bore diameters of 20 millimetres or greater.

When Bill C-21 was introduced, the government also undertook to fully ban assault-style firearms. The policy direction taken by the government had several steps. One was to amend the definition of prohibited firearms to codify the firearms that are currently prohibited in the regulations. The next step was to add additional assault-style firearms that were not included in the May 1 OIC. The third step was to add the evergreen definition.

If you walk through amendment G-4 and you start with proposed paragraph (e), you'll see it includes language that it's

a firearm that is capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy exceeding 10,000 Joules, other than a firearm designed exclusively for neutralizing explosive devices,

Those are bomb diffusers. Proposed paragraph (e) is on firearms that are already prohibited in the regulations. They're being imported from the regulations to the definition of prohibited firearm.

Proposed paragraph (f) was also already included in the regulations. These are firearms that are currently prohibited. What paragraph (f) is proposing to do is to take them from the regulations and put them into the definition of prohibited firearm, thus codifying the ban on those firearms.

Paragraph (g) would be the evergreen definition. Proposed paragraph (h) is for a motion that hasn't been moved yet.

Paragraph (i) is the schedule. The schedule has three buckets. The first bucket is the firearms that were prohibited initially in the nineties, plus the firearms included in the May 1, 2020 OIC. It also adds additional variants that have come to the attention of the CFP since the regulations were made on May 1 2020. It looks like additional firearms are added, but those firearms were already prohibited.

That's what's in schedule 1. All the firearms in schedule 1 are already prohibited; it's simply moving them from the regulations to a schedule in the Criminal Code and codifying them.

The second part is everything following clause 97 in the proposed schedule. Those firearms are not currently prohibited. However, they are included in the schedule because they have the same capabilities as the firearms that were initially included in the May 1 OIC. They are capable of sustained rapid fire, meaning that they are a military tactical design and capable of receiving a large cartridge magazine.

That's what the schedule would do. Everything is listed by make and model. It adds new variants and it proposes to codify this schedule. Everything would be listed by make and model. The reason for that is for transparency and clarity, and so that the Canadian public can search the schedule to see if the firearm is listed.

Proposed paragraph 84(1)(g) is forward-looking. It proposes to amend the definition of “prohibited firearm” to add characteristics that would capture other firearms that would fall within the parameters of what is considered to be an assault-style firearm. However, it's more restrictive than the characteristics that were used for the May 1 OIC in that it is limited to centre-fire ammunition and limited to shotguns and rifles.

I don't know if you have any other questions.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we continue clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21, I just want to take a moment to pause. We've had some good, healthy debate today, but I just want to pause and bring us back to the why of what we are doing here. As Madame Michaud noted, today is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. It commemorates the senseless murder of 14 women at École Polytechnique 33 years ago.

We need to make sure we never forget their names. We must also make sure that they did not die in vain. We are talking about Geneviève Bergeron, Maryse Laganière, Hélène Colgan, Maryse Leclair, Nathalie Croteau, Anne‑Marie Lemay, Barbara Daigneault, Sonia Pelletier, Anne‑Marie Edward, Michèle Richard, Maud Haviernick, Annie St‑Arneault, Barbara Klucznik‑Widajewicz and Annie Turcotte.

These 14 women were killed simply because they were women.

We read these names to remember them. I think it's important that we pledge and recommit our pledge to keep working to end gender-based violence, which is, as we all know, a lived reality for far too many women across Canada. We have a shared responsibility at this table, as we have healthy debates and discussions, to make sure we commit to ending gender-based violence once and for all, together.

We're all here because we want to keep our communities safe, protect our neighbours and friends, and keep guns off our streets.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the exceptional work of PolySeSouvient and the other advocates who have been working hard to ensure that we have stricter gun control. This is not a partisan statement. It's one that recognizes the efforts of those who seek to keep our streets safer, without taking away the rights and privileges of Canadians who hunt and who farm, and of indigenous communities.

We all have to accept that access to guns is a primary risk factor for armed violent behaviour. The simple fact that a firearm is present in a home increases the risk of violence and intimidation for women and children who live in those homes. We know that intimate partner violence, or IPV—which is a subset of domestic violence—that involves a firearm is 12 times more likely to result in death than similar incidents that don't involve a firearm. We know that access to guns in the home triples the likelihood of homicides and multiplies the risk of suicide by five.

We've seen data in Canada. Public reports show that between 37% and 42% of the women and girls killed in 2019 and 2020 were killed with a firearm. Data on murders committed by licensed firearm owners using a registered firearm or with firearms that were previously seized are not collected or available. As a result, it is not possible to estimate the effect of gun registration policy on femicide. The presence of a firearm in a home increases the lethality of IPV fivefold.

Asking about the presence of firearms at home can help physicians in Canada develop a safety plan for those in at-risk situations. Bill C-21 will go a long way in addressing gender-based violence in every community across Canada. I know that every one of us at this table, from all sides, is committed to this.

I believe we have an obligation and an opportunity here to be smart about how we write good legislation in respect of firearms. I've asked my Conservative colleagues and others to tell us how to improve this bill and how to look at this list, and to provide feedback. I must admit I have not received that feedback from my colleagues—I don't know if others have—other than hearing that it's all bad.

“It's all bad” is not a good enough answer for victims' families. It's also not good enough for the farmers, hunters and indigenous communities who believe that we need stricter gun control. It may be good enough for the CCFR, but that's not who we are here to serve.

I believe that every single law we write can be made better. We've done that at this committee, and we do it in other committees. Nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. I want to say this personally, as I have said to my colleagues: I am committed to doing whatever I can, and I know my colleagues are, to improve this legislation. That doesn't mean erasing it from the books. It does mean improving it and working together to do that. I think we have an obligation to ourselves and to this country to do that work.

I will say this before I get to some questions for officials. I find it incredibly problematic that there are organizations that are fundraising off tragedy. I found it appalling and I would like my Conservative friends to condemn what the CCFR did in seeking to provide a discount on products for sale on their website with the discount code “POLY”. It is unacceptable. It is disgusting. We all—every single one of us—need to speak out against this type of absolutely reprehensible behaviour.

Whether Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, Bloc or Green, we should not be acting in that way. Canadians deserve better. All of our constituents deserve better. I know there are firearms owners who are absolutely appalled by that kind of disgusting behaviour.

I want to make sure that when we leave this room there is not a single person out there who feels that anyone in this room is acting in a manner that enhances, promotes or amplifies these types of abhorrent views. I hope my colleagues will join me in that.

Let's now get to the crux of some of the things that I know we want to discuss.

If I could turn to our guests, perhaps Ms. Clarke could explain to us in layman's terms what the definition intends to do.

For people out there who are watching this—and in recognizing that everything gets clipped—tell us in layman's terms, please, what the definition intends to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The meeting is resumed.

Thank you, all. We've had a number of discussions. I'm not sure that we have any kind of resolution, but I will ask Madame Michaud to put forth her unanimous consent motion. It's the only kind of motion we can deal with at this time.

My understanding is that the unanimous consent motion is to seek unanimous consent that we convene a subcommittee meeting to discuss having additional witnesses and additional witness meetings on Bill C-21. Is that correct?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, dear colleagues. I am very pleased to see you again.

Before I begin, I would like to take a moment to mark the date today: December 6, 2022. Thirty‑three years ago, a tragic shooting occurred at the École Polytechnique. On behalf of my political party, I want to again send my condolences to the victims' loved ones and families and to the victims injured on that day.

The weapon used that day was a Ruger Mini‑14, a semi‑automatic rifle, as my colleagues know very well. The killer had a magazine with 30 rounds, allowing him to kill 14 women and injure 13 others in a short amount of time. Until 2020, this weapon was still legal in Canada because it was classified as a hunting firearm, which according to some researchers was absurd.

I want to mention this and to encourage my colleagues to be respectful when speaking today, because it is a day of remembrance. There are people who have been fighting for 33 years to get the federal government to do more to ban assault weapons. In fact, that is the objective of amendment G‑4, which we are looking at today, and I encourage my colleagues to be respectful.

I also want to take the time to denounce the intimidation that has been happening over the past few days, of the officials who are here to help us and answer our questions. It is not any easier for them than it is for us. We get many questions from members of the public who are sometimes angry, because there is a large amount of misinformation going around. It may also be because the government did not properly explain the amendment it tabled.

I once again encourage my colleagues to be respectful towards the people who are here today to help us and to answer our questions. This also goes for those listening to our proceedings who may feel compelled to write to the officials. I encourage them to be careful in their comments.

Finally, before I begin, I also want to take the time to denounce the fact that the promotional code “poly” was used and promoted by the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights to get people to buy merchandise on its website. Marketing like that on the backs of victims is simply disgusting. I encourage my colleagues to denounce this and to distance themselves from this association.

Getting back to amendment G‑4, I think the government is trying to do something that has merit. What is deplorable is that it is working backwards. It did not explain what it was trying to do, as I said. At the outset, Bill C‑21 was mainly about handguns, airsoft guns, and “yellow flag”, “red flag”‑type measures.

When it tabled the bill, the government promised it would amend it, which means it must already have thought that the initial version was not perfect. We understand that the government, in exchange for support from some groups that support gun control, promised it would amend Bill C‑21 to also ban military‑style assault weapons. Because Bill C‑21 was mainly about handguns, there was a risk that such an amendment would be ruled out of order since, as you know very well, Mr. Chair, it may have fallen outside the scope of the bill.

From what I understood, the government has been secretly working on this amendment since May 2022, without consulting stakeholder groups. That is what these groups have been telling us for the past few weeks, that they were not consulted. The same goes for the airsoft industry which, unfortunately, does not appear to have been consulted by the government. We will come back to that later during consideration of the bill.

The government let the bill go through the process. It listened to members in the House debate handguns, airsoft guns and “yellow flag”, “red flag”‑type measures, among other things. It let committee members invite experts to appear and hear what they had to say about the possible impacts of the bill, particularly on the elements I just mentioned.

We have to remember that, during the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals committed to ridding the streets of handguns and assault rifles, as they said in their election platform at the time.

On May 1, 2020, the government issued an order in council banning 1,500 assault rifles, with immediate effect. It immediately banned nine types of firearms and their variants, including M16, AR‑10 and AR‑15 rifles, the M4 carbine and Ruger Mini‑14 rifle. The order in council also banned firearms with the following two characteristics: capable of discharging a projectile with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules; and a bore of 20 millimetres or greater. Those are the two criteria in items (e) and (f) of amendment G‑4.

We can therefore understand that these two elements in the amendment are nothing new, since the firearms meeting these criteria are already prohibited. I would ask the experts to confirm whether this is indeed what we should understand from items (e) and (f) in amendment G‑4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 52 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). The committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration, and we'll get to the speaking list shortly, which carries on from yesterday.

Before we resume debate, I will welcome the officials who are once again with us today. From the Department of Justice, we have Paula Clarke, counsel, criminal law policy section; and Phaedra Glushek, counsel, criminal law policy section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rachel Mainville-Dale, acting director general, firearms policy; and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Rob Daly, director, strategic policy, Canadian firearms program; and Murray Smith, technical specialist, Canadian firearms program.

Welcome back, everyone. Thanks for joining us once again.

With that, on the speaking list for carrying on the debate on G-4 we have Madame Michaud, Mr. Noormohamed, Ms. Dancho, Pam Damoff and Mr. Motz, and it carries on with some more. We'll go down the list further as we go.

I think this will take us to the end of the day, but feel free to put your hand up if you want to be on the list.

With that, I turn the floor over to Madame Michaud.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.