Debates of June 21st, 2022

An Act to Change the Name of the Electoral District of Châteauguay—Lacolle

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

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I would like to talk about in my riding in particular is this. Where I come from, we do basically three things, forestry, farming and fracking, the three Fs, as I like to call them. They are exciting things that happen in northern Alberta. It is a very diverse part of the province, with extremely fertile farmland, the boreal forest that covers the majority of the riding, and the oil sands, with conventional oil and coal mining, just on the edge of the riding as well. Bringing energy, food and shelter to the world is what we do, so the prevention of poverty starts out in northern Alberta and in my riding of Peace River—Westlock.

The opportunity to speak about my riding in particular, and riding names and what they symbolize, does not come up often, so I am very excited about this debate today.

One of the other things we have in Peace River—Westlock is the largest lake in Alberta. Slave Lake is located right dead centre in the middle of the riding. It is one of the lakes in the country where, in the past, commercial fishing has thrived. We hope one day it will be rejuvenated in Slave Lake, as a number of years back it nearly ran out of water. Over the last 10 years though, it has been raining so much that the lake is full of water again. It is so full in fact that many people are complaining about their beaches. As the water in the lake went down, of course their beaches got larger. They developed them and built fancy pergolas, gazebos and things like that out on the beach. As the water came back, those things ended up in the water, so there are some complaints about the fact the water level is so high. Nonetheless, it is the biggest lake in Alberta.

A lot of people do not realize this, but the centre of Alberta is not Red Deer but actually where I live, near a little community called Fort Assiniboine. The geographical centre of Alberta is in fact in the riding of Peace River—Westlock. I always tell the folks in my riding that they in fact live in central Alberta. No matter what the people from Red Deer say, we live in central Alberta. I can see the member for Battle River—Crowfoot shaking his head at me, but I can assure him that my riding is the true centre of Alberta, “the promised land”, as I like to call it.

I am not sure if members are aware of this, but there is one bill that comes up at the beginning of a parliament after the redistribution, where all of the naming opportunities for all of the ridings come into play and there is a negotiation that happens between all of the parties as to which names go forward and which do not. I remember the member for Winnipeg Centre put forward the name “the heart of Canada” for his riding, which, as the member of Parliament for the centre of Alberta, I could commensurate with that renaming opportunity for sure.

I think mine being “the promised land” and his being “the heart of Canada” were the two that were negotiated against each other and in the end neither went forward, which was too bad. The member for Winnipeg North may have been the one who negotiated to get rid of those names, because I think that would have been right next door to where he is at and perhaps he was concerned about all of the excitement there would be for this new riding called “the heart of Canada”. Nonetheless, I digress.

I am not sure if the actual geographical centre of Canada is Winnipeg, as I am not sure exactly where it is. I do know that the centre of Alberta is in Peace River—Westlock and the centre of the country is not Toronto. That is for sure.

[An hon. member]

It is Provencher.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member behind me says that the centre of Canada is Provencher. I can be certain that it is not, because I think that from Provencher someone could spit and hit the American border. Given the fact that my riding, Peace River—Westlock, is in northern Alberta and the centre of Alberta is a seven-hour drive from the American border, I can assure colleagues that the geographical centre of Canada is definitely not in Provencher.

That said, I have very much enjoyed speaking about the promised land, Peace River—Westlock, as I like to call it, but there are a host of other things that we could be discussing in this place as well.

The member for Edmonton West did speak about some of these things already, but I wanted to highlight some of the other private member's bills that have come forward from folks in our caucus, particularly Bill C-228, from the member for Sarnia—Lambton, which amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to ensure that folks are able to collect their pension funds over time. I want to reference Bill C-240, from the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, which amends the Income Tax Act to ensure that capital gains exemptions are granted to those whose estate goes to a charity. The member for Essex also has an amendment to the Income Tax Act to allow trades persons to deduct amounts for travelling.

That is some of the amazing work that our caucus is doing and I just wanted to highlight some of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, having had the choice to continue to listen to Conservatives or to myself, I have chosen myself. I hope members do not mind.

I want to defend the member for Provencher. There is a valid argument to be made that the centre of Canada is in fact in the riding of Provencher, just east of the city of Winnipeg. If members do not believe me or the member for Provencher, take a drive. It is beautiful country and they will see a lot of sweet things. It is the promised land of sorts, and I am sure the member for Provencher would concur with that, and there is a marker that clearly identifies that it is the centre of Canada.

I want to take this opportunity to stand up and appreciate the fact that my colleague and friend has brought forward this legislation. As members will attempt to bring up other issues, I would suggest that names really do matter. There is no absolute guarantee that the next election will have new names or, in fact, a guarantee of boundaries. This is something we suspect because of agreements that are in place, but there is no absolute guarantee. I know, through the campaigning that I have done over many different elections, that people often ask about the name of a riding because it does matter. If something is included or excluded, it is often an issue that is raised with local members, whether at a provincial level or a national level.

Therefore, the member who has agreed to bring forward this legislation, not as part of the draw that MPs are talking about but rather as a Senate bill that has been brought forward by the member, still continues to have her draw at some point in time, but recognizes that here is an opportunity to get a name change. I would hope that members opposite would recognize that what we are talking about is private members' hour. It is not an opposition day motion or a government piece of legislation. It is someone who has identified an issue as a member and has seen an effective way of seeking a change in the name. It is not taking away from the member's own personal draw, if I can put it that way, but rather it is something that has come through the Senate.

I listened to a member from the Bloc, who indicated, as did the member from the New Democratic Party, the importance of the name for that particular region. I might not necessarily be overly familiar with that region of the country, but I do know that people take it very seriously in regard to, as I pointed out earlier, what is in and what is out and why it has a specific name. I thought it was quite nice to hear the member make reference to a local mayor, who has passed, as someone who has raised the issue, and there are others, no doubt.

I want to take the opportunity to applaud the member in recognizing something that is important to her and her constituents. I do not believe it takes away from other issues that could be debated. I have seen many debates, in particular opposition motions, that I would suggest are questionable at the best of times. In fact, in listening to the debate, because of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, we have seen ample other issues raised during this debate of a wide variety, whether it is an economic or a social matter. In the most recent debate a member was able to reflect on his own constituency and talked about using the terms the “promised land” and “milk and honey” and I thought he presented a pretty sound argument.

Many of my colleagues, in particular those from the province of British Columbia, are very proud of the mountains. When we start to look at our rural communities, we see a great deal of beauty.

I represent Winnipeg North, an area that I am very proud to represent. It is a working-class community, an area that is very reflective of Canadian society and how we have ultimately evolved. I look at the many contributions of our Ukrainian heritage community and our Jewish community. About 100 years ago, they came in and built the CP track, or the great divide, if I can put it that way, between Winnipeg North and Winnipeg Centre.

Our nation is built not only by nature but by people, and there are many aspects to Winnipeg North. There is natural beauty. We have the Red River, which flows through it. At times, it can pose a challenge because of flood-related issues, but let there be no doubt that our rivers draw people to the riverbanks. The impact, whether at Kildonan Park or The Forks, is quite significant.

We can take a look at our industrial zones in Winnipeg North that contribute immensely to the development not only of Winnipeg North but of our country. We can take a look at our long-haul truck drivers, or the backbone of our health care system, our health care workers, like our nurses. There is no shortage of labour coming out of Winnipeg North to support our country. There is also the production of widgets and consumption of honey and milk.

No matter where members of Parliament represent, whether it is urban, rural, in the mountains, in the flatlands of the Prairies, at the Great Lakes, on the cliffs of the Atlantic Ocean or up north, we all have a sense of pride in the communities we represent. We all want our riding names to reflect what we believe our constituents want as a name. It does matter. It is taken into consideration in communities, both large and small.

The people who live in Garden Grove are very proud of the fact that they have a wonderful, beautiful and unique community. I can talk about the Point Douglas area or we can go to the far north end of Winnipeg North where we have the newer community of Amber Trails, which is growing rapidly. Whether it is the traditional old end of the north end, Point Douglas, Garden Grove, Meadows West, Tyndall Park, Amber Trails, The Maples or those I have not listed, they are all a very important part of the riding of Winnipeg North.

Winnipeg North seems to be a name that is widely accepted, as it has been since the sixties. I am not 100% sure on that, but it has been around for a long time. I will not be requesting a name change. I am quite happy with the name of Winnipeg North. However, I do believe that in situations where there is a need for change and a member is afforded the opportunity to bring in that change, then why not? That is what I would ultimately say.

At one point, I think we were anticipating that the debate was going to collapse. As I pointed out at the beginning, we had a number of Conservatives wanting to speak to the bill, so I figured I too would share in the glory of Winnipeg North and recognize the value and hard work that members put in and the sense of pride they have in the constituencies they represent.

With those few words, I hope that all members at least recognize what the member is trying to do in a straightforward way in reflecting the will of her constituents, and support the legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will say that as a chair occupants, we really appreciate single-word ridings, like Avalon, Provencher, Durham and Montcalm. It always makes it good.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured to serve the good people of Perth—Wellington. My riding name makes sense. It is Perth County and Wellington County. It is very straightforward, and I am very proud to represent the good folks of Perth—Wellington and to rise to debate Bill S-207.

Being the member of Parliament for the great riding of Perth—Wellington, which includes the city of Stratford and the great Stratford Festival, of course I am inclined to quote Shakespeare, who said this most eloquently in Romeo and Juliet:

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet

To make a play on words, what is in a riding name? That which we call Châteauguay—Lacolle by any other name would something, something. I am not very good at iambic pentameter, but members get the point. There is a consideration here, as riding names should reflect the communities they represent. In this case, it has been noted that Lacolle is a neighbouring municipality that is not actually in the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle.

I have to hand it to the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle for her persistence on this matter. If memory serves me correctly, I believe this Parliament marks the third time she has attempted to introduce this bill. In the 42nd Parliament, it was Bill C-377, and I was on the procedure and House affairs committee when we reviewed that bill. In the 43rd Parliament, first and second session, it was Bill S-213. Now, in the 44th Parliament, it is Bill S-207.

I do not want to make light of this change, because I recognize that it does reflect the riding and the communities in it, but I would be negligent in not pointing out that we are already getting into redistribution for the next redistribution. The fact is that we are now nearly seven years into debating this riding name, and we would have to go through the process of amending it, with the costs associated with that not only in the House of Commons and federal institutions, but also at Elections Canada, for potentially as little as 18 months. It seems these resources could be addressed elsewhere.

I would draw the attention of the House to the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle's original plan for a private member's bill. This is one that I would have supported wholeheartedly.

Immediately after the 2015 election, there was obviously a lottery. I placed high in the 200s. I did not have the opportunity to debate my bill, but the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle did. According to The Hill Times, at the time, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle was “planning on putting forward a motion, M-125, Financial Literacy, that seeks to have the House Finance Committee study and report back on the implementation of the National Strategy for Financial Literacy to see if its meeting its current goals, evolving, and has the right measures in place to evaluate its progress.”

That is a motion I could get behind. Just imagine if six and a half years ago, the government had financial literacy in place and had been able to benefit, for the last six years, from a national financial literacy plan. Imagine how much further ahead we as Canadians would have been if the Liberals had taken up a commitment to being financially literate with the nation's finances. However, here we are six and a half years later, and sadly Motion No. 125 never saw the light of day and the member went ahead with Bill C-377 instead.

I am not going to imply that the member was told to do otherwise and go with a different PMB. We all know that often the House leader and the whips on the government side will encourage members, gently or otherwise, to go in a different direction. However, it is interesting that the member, immediately prior to the replenishment, the night before, opted not to go ahead with an important motion on financial literacy in Canada and went with changing the name of her riding from Châteauguay—Lacolle to Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville.

I note that the name does roll off the tongue, especially for an Anglo who tries his best in our second national language. It nonetheless seems to be a PMB that lacks a purpose in the sense that we are not likely to have an election campaign before the new ridings come into place. We will not have that opportunity.

I will leave my comments there.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. This bill is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I left off by acknowledging that I recognize the cultural value of hunting in many communities and for many Canadians. Having visited a community during moose hunting season in particular, I understand and have seen first-hand the value that local citizens attach to that time of year.

I also understand the sentimental value, if we want to call it that, attached to certain heirloom firearms. I believe it was the member for Kildonan—St. Paul who had, at one point in her speech, talked about a rifle, a shotgun, that had been handed down from generation to generation in her family. In a sense, it represented the efforts of the family, going way back, to carve out a living in a harsh environment in Manitoba.

I understand the sentimental value of that heirloom firearm, but what I do not understand is the sentimental value of, for example, a Saturday night special or an AK-47. The rifle the member for Kildonan—St. Paul was talking about was used to carve out a space in the wilderness, I presume, but some of these weapons are used to carve up neighbourhoods through gun violence.

This bill is not about the cultural value of hunting. It is not about persecuting duck hunters or deer hunters, who do not use handguns to hunt their prey, in any event. It is about acting before it is too late. What I mean by that is I do not believe that any member of the House wants Canada to turn into the United States as we see it today. Regardless of party, I believe we are all united in this notion.

In the United States, there are more guns than people. People there carry guns routinely such that we could be sitting on a bus and could almost assume, or it almost makes sense to assume, that a person may be packing a pistol. We do not know, when we bump into someone, if they are going to take it personally. A tragic consequence could result. It is a country where we see gun tragedies almost daily. No one in the House wants to go there; no one in the House wants Canada to be that way.

Gun violence is a multi-faceted problem, and I think it is really important that we do not oversimplify the issue. I understand that in QP, questions can be one-dimensional and issues get simplified. It is all part of the cut and thrust of debate, but I think when it comes to crafting policy, we should not oversimplify.

I have heard it said in speeches in the House that, well, gun crimes are up with the Liberals in power. The first cardinal sin of oversimplification is to confuse correlation with causation, so let us look at the facts.

Since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81%. If I recall correctly, 2009 is before 2015, when our Liberal government was elected. The fact that gun crimes are going up has nothing to do with the Liberal government's agenda. In fact, it probably has more to do with funding cuts to the CBSA by the former Harper government.

Another fact is that handguns are the preferred weapon of criminals. We know that the RCMP and border services have been working hard to cut the flow of firearms into Canada, mainly handguns. As a matter of fact, I believe the RCMP and border services intercepted nearly double the number of firearms in 2021 than the year before. The forces of the government are working hard and are having some success. The idea that gun violence going up is the fault of the Liberal government really is a terrible oversimplification and should not be allowed to stand.

Another fact I have learned is that over half of crime guns traced in 2020 in Canada were sourced domestically. In other words, they were obtained legally, or through theft or straw purchasing, including 50% of handguns traced. That is a big number of guns that are actually legal guns. The problem of illegal guns coming across the border is a serious one, obviously, but so is the pool of legal guns in this country.

Another point I would like to make is that ordinary Canadians, all of us, have a right to feel safe. We hear the opposition talk about this constantly when they bring up crime issues. They always talk about victims and how the community has the right to feel safe. This is what the bill is all about. It is about the right of Canadians to feel safe in their communities, especially, for example, victims of conjugal violence.

There is a contradiction, I would posit, in the Conservative narrative. When it comes to protecting communities through minimum sentences, the Conservatives are all in, but when it comes to protecting communities by curbing gun violence, all of a sudden the argument is that of course they want to curb gun violence, but the Liberal government approach is just not a practical one that is likely to work. In other words, there is a big escape hatch in the argument.

It is a complex problem, and it is not going to be solved uniquely by freezing the pool of legal handguns in this country. Some funding is required. We have already put $920 million into addressing gun violence. That includes $312 million over five years to increase intelligence and investigative capacity at the border, and $250 million for municipalities and indigenous communities for programming to prevent gang violence through the building safer communities fund. As far as my own province of Quebec is concerned, our government recently provided $46 million to the province under the guns and gangs initiative.

I think that brings me to the end. I look forward to listening to further speeches on the topic.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member on the opposite side gave a good speech.

I would like to ask him a question, and he would know me to be somewhat analytical in my approach to Canada's problems and how the government needs to look at solving those problems. I am looking at the data that shows what crimes are actually being committed in Canada and what weapons are being used in those crimes.

Does the member think it might be a little unambitious to go after legal gun owners to deal with crimes that are largely committed with guns that are not legally registered, or could his government perhaps decide to work a little harder and provide a little more ambition to show Canadians how that would reduce crime across Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, freezing the pool of legal handguns would not solve the problem in and of itself. It would reduce the risk going forward of illegal handguns from a growing pool making their way into the hands of criminals.

It would minimize the risks, but there are other actions that need to be taken at the border. Those actions are being taken through budget investments that would help pay for new technologies, new scanning technologies. As I mentioned in my speech, there is money being spent to enhance the intelligence gathering and investigative capacity of the RCMP and the CBSA. We have to tackle gang activity through different programs, and so on and so forth. It is not just one solution to a complex problem.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member said that Bill C‑21 does not target hunting rifles and that hunters are capable of managing their firearms responsibly.

This bill, however, is a half measure. The member said people should feel safe. As a member from the Island of Montreal, he knows that there are neighbourhoods where people no longer feel safe.

Does he agree that Bill C‑21, while it may be a step in the right direction, should have gone much further and should have included stricter control at the border and joint efforts to fight organized crime and smuggling as well as the registry we have been talking about for weeks that could have given us more control over smuggling and made Montreal's streets safer?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I see these as two components.

This bill seeks to freeze the legal gun market, including handguns. As far as the border is concerned, it is often a question of budget, which requires giving the departments the necessary resources to develop more effective strategies to deal with illegal firearms smuggling.

To me, these are two different components. The fact that we introduced Bill C‑21 does not stop us from giving the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency the resources they need to develop the strategies that the member for Montcalm mentioned.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, normally I would say it is a pleasure to rise to speak in the House, but I find it a little challenging when it is concerning Bill C-21.

In my former life, I was the mayor of a small city in Saskatchewan. One of my many roles as mayor was being the chair of the police commission. I have witnessed first-hand the full spectrum between responsible firearms owners and gang members. I am no stranger to competitive shooting or understanding the importance of the safe use of firearms. As a young boy, I won top shot numerous times in Air Cadets, and I was second in my platoon in basic officer training in Saint-Jean, Quebec. I credit this to my grandfather, who was a sniper in the offensive during World War II.

I personally know several people, and those from organizations, who are all responsible firearms owners who promote firearms safety. Today we are in the House to debate an example of the government doing something just to say it is doing something. This is something it has tremendous experience in. It is as though it legislates to generate good talking points instead of good policy. There is an old saying: “Walk around. Carry a clipboard, and look busy.” This is exactly what the government is doing: looking busy and accomplishing nothing.

As everyone watching likely knows, Bill C-21 is the Liberal government's latest attack on responsible Canadian firearms owners, another band-aid solution, another policy that would punish people instead of helping them. The government has had a habit of punishing people or industries for ideological reasons. I can name any number of examples: its carbon tax, warning labels on ground beef and, today, this attack on lawful firearms owners.

The NDP-Liberal government does not think people should hunt. It does not think farmers need firearms as tools. It does not think target shooting is a legitimate sport. The government simply does not believe anyone should own a gun. In short, it does not understand rural Canada. It is attacking us and our way of life.

Today I would like to spend some time talking about one of the aspects of this bill that has received the most attention and the most press: the handgun. Licensed handgun owners in Canada are responsible owners. For my Liberal colleagues across the aisle, who likely do not know the process but think they are experts, I would like to share with the House the lengthy process to obtain a handgun in Canada.

First, people need to go through the process to get their PAL. Again for my Liberal colleagues, that stands for a possession and acquisition licence. That involves taking the firearm safety course, passing the test and, finally, filling out the application forms and going through the needed background checks. To obtain a licence for a handgun, people also need to pass an additional safety course, which is the Canadian restricted firearm safety course. They must register the handgun and follow special storage, display, transportation and handling requirements. They may not carry the firearms on their person, they may only use them for target shooting or collecting. They may only be used at approved ranges, and one would likely need to be members in good standing at said ranges, which would come with its own background check.

After going through all these steps, it is not hard to see why handgun owners are so responsible. The cost and time to go through this process alone would deter anyone from breaking any of these rules. The question I have for my NDP-Liberal colleagues is this: What would a handgun ban accomplish that these strict rules do not already accomplish?

We all know that Canada's largest cities are experiencing a surge in gun violence. That is something that needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly, but it is not something this bill would do anything to address.

The government has never even tried to address the reasons people join gangs. Youth do it out of a sense of hopelessness and a lack of belonging. Hopelessness is created by not having a sense of responsibility. Who would when a government tries to bubble-wrap people and make decisions for them in almost every aspect of their lives?

What we want are responsible citizens who make decisions for themselves, who understand that for every decision a person makes, there is a consequence and sometimes an unintended consequence. For every decision someone makes, they have a choice between doing something good or something bad. They can either contribute to society and help their fellow man or take away from society and tear down their fellow man. What needs to be instilled in this country and future generations is a sense of responsibility, a sense of belonging and clear examples of the differences between right and wrong.

The gangs our youth are joining that commit these shootings are not using legal, registered firearms. They are using handguns smuggled over the border. Our border agency, the CBSA, needs more resources to tackle this problem. That is something that this bill, Bill C-21, falls well short of.

Recently, the public safety committee tabled its guns and gangs report, which included several recommendations to tackle gun violence in Canada, recommendations that seem to have been totally ignored in drafting this bill. It included recommendations such as creating a program to tour young offenders through penitentiaries; maintaining mandatory minimum sentences for drug and firearm-related crimes; removing the expensive firearm buyback program and allocating the money to gang prevention programs; adequately funding indigenous police forces to combat gangs and gun smuggling; and that the government actually recognize that the majority of illegal firearms in Canada are the result of smuggling.

If the NDP-Liberals were more interested in developing good policy instead of good talking points, they would have paid attention to the committee's important work. Sadly, this has not been the case.

Bill C-21 is not only short on resources for the the CBSA, but also for the RCMP. I have a constituent who has been trying, as a responsible gun owner, to contact the RCMP to register a handgun so that they are aware before the deadline. There are absolutely no resources in the RCMP to handle this influx of requests caused by the government's announcement. I have spoken to this man personally and he is very concerned. He is very concerned because he is a responsible gun owner and he wants to do the right thing, but he cannot accomplish that because of the limited resources the government has allocated to allow him to follow the rules.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I can understand and appreciate the member is not going to be supporting the legislation. The Conservative Party has made that very clear. It is the only political party that will not be supporting this legislation.

More things are involved, if the member is aware, within this legislation. For example, the idea of red flags and yellow flags and ensuring there is a higher sense of safety and security for situations of domestic abuse. Does the member see any aspect of this legislation he could actually support?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about red flags and yellow flags. Here is a red flag: Our party approached the Liberals to split this bill so that we could actually have a conversation about it, but that did not happen. The red flag is when we hear from the Liberals that they want to listen to the people, but they are not. They did not listen, and they are not listening to reports coming to them that are giving them good advice. Instead, they are shutting themselves down and saying this is what we need to do. They are not listening. They are not listening to Saskatchewan.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two important groups that support this bill.

The first is PolyRemembers, which was founded after the shooting at École polytechnique in Montreal in 1989, where 14 young women were killed. The other represents survivors of the Quebec City mosque, who also applauded the bill. That should count for a lot when we are making a decision.

There have been other shootings in Canada, and I am not sure if other groups support this bill. In Quebec, it is clear that the bill has the support of these groups. Does the fact that these people applaud the bill and want it passed count for anything for my colleague?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, number one, I do remember that tragedy. It is still fresh in my mind, the moment when I heard the news about what happened. It is a tragedy, but I also would like to point out that there is an opportunity to have an open conversation about motivating factors and what the motivating factors are for people who illegally use firearms. That is not being addressed in this bill, so I find that tragic as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent a lot of time with the member in committee, and I really appreciate his feedback and his thoughtful presentation tonight. I know there has been a lot of intimate partner violence, and we know more and more we are seeing guns used in this. When we look at domestic violence and intimate partner violence, this is a growing concern. I am just wondering if he has any suggestions about what the government needs to do to approach these issues and to make sure that we keep people safe in these situations.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member a very happy summer and look forward to working with her again in the fall, if we have that opportunity, in the committee.

Domestic violence is obviously a tragic thing that happens, and I am very sad that it does happen, but again, we need to focus on what drives and motivates. We are talking about gangs and what motivates people getting into gangs. That is a challenge, because they have a sense of hopelessness. They feel like they are not part of something. That is not being addressed. All the recommendations that have come forward are not being addressed in this bill.

Just doing something to look like something is being done does not solve the problem. We need to address the root of this problem, so I just ask that we vote this down and give it an other opportunity to actually address the real concerns within our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5, the soft-on-crime bill, actually allows for lesser sentences for those who commit crimes with guns. I was wondering how the hon. member can reconcile what he sees in Bill C-21 with this soft-on-crime approach by the Liberal government.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely disappointed. I am disappointed that we seem to be soft on punishing those who have committed horrendous crimes, yet punish lawful firearms owners. I cannot reconcile that, and I just find it absolutely crazy. I think that is a very good question. There is a huge gap and divide in this bill that we are not addressing. We have an opportunity to actually do that at this point in time, but the Liberals have shut that down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill, and I will start with a confession. I am surprised to find myself agreeing with many of the criticisms expressed by Conservative members. This does not happen very often when it comes to firearms.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-21 and will obviously try to improve it in committee. However, it does not address any of the current problems that are affecting cities, particularly Montreal. There is nothing in the bill to address the shootings on our city streets that are scaring our children. This is very serious.

The bill puts a freeze on the acquisition of new legal handguns. This is good and might help, but these weapons represent barely 5% of the weapons used in violent crimes. According to Montreal's police service, the SPVM, 95% of the handguns used in violent crimes are illegal. Bill C‑21 contains nothing more than a few watered-down measures to tackle this problem.

Where are the measures to increase resources for border services so they can curb the trafficking of illegal weapons? Where are the additional patrols? I know that I repeat this often, but I would like to remind the House that the Government of Quebec recently provided $6 million to increase patrols in the Akwesasne area.

The federal government is nowhere to be found. It must propose something to tackle this issue, whether it is resources, money, a special task force, I do not know. The bill does nothing to deal with the violent crimes currently being committed in our cities.

We are faced once more with a government that claims to be doing something and tries to give the impression that it is taking action while actually doing very little. Ideally, the longer it can make this last, the more satisfied it is, because it can repeat 100 promises three or four times in different election campaigns.

I am going to take the example of assault weapons, which can fire ammunition at insane speeds and which no one needs in real life. These weapons are a problem. The current government claims that it has already done its job by prohibiting them. It often repeats this claim in its speeches, saying that it is a good thing.

In reality, in May 2020, the government cobbled together a list seemingly at random, containing several models of weapons whose names seemed to have been picked out of a hat. Then the government declared that those weapons were prohibited. However, similar models that are just as or even more dangerous continue to be legal. This approach pushed the manufacturers of these weapons to adapt and develop other models since then.

We need to work intelligently, and for that to happen, the government needs to listen to the opposition once in a while. The opposition is not always right, but it often is right, and it makes good suggestions.

For example, we said that there was no need to make a list of weapons, but that we should consult experts and define what an assault weapon is. Once the legal framework is established, if a weapon fits in this framework, it will be banned and considered illegal, no matter what weapons manufacturers invent five or 10 years from now. That seems so logical to me, so I do not understand—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. The member for Perth—Wellington on a point of order.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member speaking, but we are hearing reports from certain members that the Zoom application may not be working correctly. I am seeking guidance from the Table and from the Chair as to whether there is a problem with the network.

There are indications that people are not able to log on to the system.