Debates of May 17th, 2023

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the following. Should the government have started by dealing with the illegal weapons that are coming across Canada's borders? That is a public safety issue that has become a political issue. Would it have been easier to do things differently?

[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.

[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.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for all his work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Throughout this debate, I have been hearing a lot of misinformation and disinformation, especially from gun lobby groups, as well as the Conservative Party, but a lot of that NRA north style attacks and disinformation. I was wondering if he could comment on how he dealt with that on the committee and what he takes from the debates that have gone on for the last little while.

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

Madam Speaker, to anyone who is thinking of joining the public safety committee, they better have a thick skin. I will say without a doubt that is probably the most-watched committee out of any parliamentary committee. One can probably see one's actions reflected in real time just by watching one's Twitter feed.

On dealing with the gun lobby, I do not like using that term all the time. I know of the groups that exist like the CCFR, but a lot of my ordinary constituents are also logged in to the gun lobby. A lot of them came forward with some very legitimate concerns, and I am glad a lot of committee members took the time to listen to those.

Yes, some of the vitriol I have seen on Twitter has been a little “out there”, and I have just tried to keep myself straight and narrow to my principles and I am glad we were able to do the work to make sure the bill is where it is at today.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to be positive with the member first before I am a bit more on the pointed side. Even though I am not a permanent member of the committee, I have been sitting in at public safety quite a bit. He is greatly missed. He is much preferred on that committee than his current NDP colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, because he does have a lot of common sense. I want to congratulate him on getting the airsoft exemption through.

To get more on the pointed side, he talked about the necessary changes in the last-minute amendment. He talked about that at length. This was brought in by the Liberal government, going after hunters and sport shooters, their tools and rifles and shotguns. We challenged in that committee that it was out of scope. We had a chance to put it completely to bed, but that member voted in support to keep that in there.

I would like to give the member the opportunity to maybe apologize to the hunters right across Canada for putting them through that unnecessary pain and putting the whole committee through the pain of months when this could have been shut down back in November.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the kind words. He also has been a good person to work with. What a lot of people forget about in these heated debates is that we are all human beings. We may come from different political backgrounds, but a lot of us actually work in a very respectful way.

In regard to the member's question, I will let my actions speak instead of my words. If the member will recall, in early February I put a motion on notice to refer those amendments to the Speaker. It was that threat of a motion that actually I think was the straw that broke the camel's back and forced the Liberals to withdraw the amendments.

To the hunters, farmers and indigenous communities in my riding, my actions made up for that, and that is what forced the Liberals to withdraw the amendment.

[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]

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hold my colleague in high regard. I had the opportunity to tell him that earlier. I think we worked well together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is too bad he was not there for the study of the bill.

One thing I am having a hard time understanding—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member because there is a problem with the interpretation.

The problem has now been resolved.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the interpreters, who do an incredible job every day.

I was saying that my colleague and I work very well together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is too bad he was not there for the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, there still seems to be a problem with the interpretation.

Sitting Suspended

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

It starts and then it stops again. I will therefore suspend the proceedings while we find a solution.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 7:33 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 7:34 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

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

The problem has now been resolved, so the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia can continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the interpreters and technicians again. I think it is a plot to make me repeat for a third time that I really appreciate my NDP colleague. I really enjoyed working with him at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is too bad he was not there for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑21.

There is one thing I am having a hard time understanding. It is the red-flag measure, which the government presented as a measure that could help protect women who are victims of intimate partner violence. Ultimately, what we heard from dozens of women's groups from across the country is that they fear this measure will shift the onus from law enforcement to victims. Even some lawyers testified that it could increase the workload of the courts, which are already busy enough at this time. Everyone agreed that it was not a good measure, and that it would not do anything more to help women who are victims of intimate partner violence.

The NDP is usually in favour of such positions. Like the Bloc Québécois, they want to do more to protect women. However, while the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party voted against these government clauses, the NDP supported them.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to explain why, because I still do not understand this.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his incredible work on this file. I have heard throughout my constituency of a great amount of respect for the work he has done, and the airsoft community has been very clear in its appreciation.

I am just wondering if the member could answer a question. I have talked to a lot of gun owners and indigenous people across my riding, and one of the things I have actually found, for the most part, is that there is a common-sense reasonable discussion. I really respect the people who have talked to me, and we have had really good conversations about this issue, because it is complex and there are challenges to it.

I am just wondering if the member could talk about how the government could do a better job of actually talking to the people who use these tools for very specific reasons that do not harm the larger community. How could that be better reflected in the government's legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, this allows me to give a shout-out to our dear colleague, the member for Nunavut, because she also helped educate me on the way of life in the north.

It became very clear, after these amendments were dropped. We had indigenous witnesses come before our committee, and it was clear that consultation had not happened. Given that the government has attached so much importance to that relationship and the fact that it has passed legislation saying federal laws had to be in harmony with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it was quite obvious that those amendments were dropped with no consultation, and through indigenous efforts and the pressure indigenous people put on government, they can take a bow, because they are the ones who forced the government to backtrack and respect their way of life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I will be sharing my time with the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

I want to start by expressing my gratitude to the good people of Don Valley East for giving me the privilege to be in this House and to speak on this issue. All of us are fortunate to have the opportunity to come into this esteemed House and speak on behalf of our communities to bring their concerns and their voices here. I am honoured to be here and to listen to my colleagues, and I mean that, because it is a really important thing. I am honoured to be in this House and listen to so many different perspectives from across the country. It speaks to the uniqueness we all bring to this House. Canada is a vast country, with diverse regions and a multitude of different voices, opinions and political views, and we often do not see eye to eye, even within our own parties. That is the beautiful thing about this House, that it maintains our good democracy in this country.

Many members know that I spent a lot of time in the Ontario legislature, and when I first arrived here, I was a bit taken aback. I thought this was even slower than the Ontario legislature. When things happen, it is a drawn-out process. We go to committees, go to caucus or sit in the House. However, there is a reason for that. It took me a couple of months to figure out why things work the way they work around here. It is because of those different opinions from across the country. We need to foster a mutual understanding of each other because we bring all these different perspectives. The more time I spend here, the better I understand the diversity of opinions of my colleagues, their passion and their motivations. The choice of words they use in this House makes a huge difference.

I want to take the opportunity to share my experience with respect to this bill and talk a bit about my community, my experiences and what this bill means to me.

I come from a community in the Don Mills corridor. It is an interesting neighbourhood because there are homes that are worth, in some cases, $7 million, and there are homes not too far away, a two- or three-minute drive, that are Toronto community housing. There is diversity in economics, but also a diversity in cultures.

I grew up in a section of the community where there were some economic challenges. Like many neighbourhoods in the city of Toronto, my community experienced a lot of gun violence. Without a question, there is an association between poverty and gun violence. It is a fact in a city like mine. During my youth, growing up in my community, I probably knew several young men, the majority of whom were Black, who were murdered in my community as a result of gun violence. Many neighbourhoods in Toronto face this challenge, and there is no question that poverty is linked to that. If we go into any neighbourhood in Toronto experiencing challenges with respect to gun violence and ask people under the age of 21 if they know someone who has died because of gun violence, the answer is usually yes. That is a fact in the communities that are economically challenged in Toronto.

In my community, growing up with this experience opened up a new perspective for me. I wanted to look for ways to balance the playing field and open up opportunities for young people. That is what made me get involved in politics as a young man. It drove me to become a youth worker in Scarborough for many years. It was what made me run for school board trustee and then go on to the Ontario legislature, where a lot of my work had to do with finding opportunities for young people who go through these challenges.

I can remember when I was the minister of children and youth in Ontario and I went to a community called Mount Olive in Toronto. I was with a group of about 40 young people between the ages of maybe seven and 13. I remember asking this young girl who was walking with us if she liked her community. She said that she loved her community because there were fewer gunshots this year than the previous year. That shocked me, because that was her reality.

The fight against gun violence is nothing new in a city like Toronto, in many parts of our city. Again, I am sharing my perspective, a Toronto perspective from a community like mine. Gun violence usually impacts people who come from poorer communities and racialized Canadians.

There is no question, and I have heard many times in this room, that the guns causing the crime are illegal guns. That is factual. The majority of these guns are illegal. I think there is something bigger here. By freezing the sale of handguns, we have the opportunity to send out such a strong message to Canadians that we are better off as a society when we do not have to resort to owning guns and using guns. It is such a simple concept to me.

I have collaborated over the years with many communities that have been torn apart, literally, by gun violence. I have sat with mothers, a dozen mothers, who have all lost a child. I have sat with advocates who, for 20 or 30 years, have been looking for ways to find solutions to the problems that gun violence brings forward.

I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to those folks, because they make a difference in our city and they work, day and night, to look for ways to mitigate that violence. These are not people who are put up for the Order of Canada or the Order of Ontario. These are people who keep their head down. They work on the ground level, on the street, and they look for ways to find solutions.

I will tell members this. For many years, in fact for decades, these advocates who witnessed the violence in their community would say that they agree with what this bill is doing. They agree that we should stop selling handguns in Canada, and they would agree that we have to have stricter rules in place for people who distribute guns in the community. It is not the kids, the young men and others in the community who are actually out there manufacturing these guns. These guns are being brought in from different jurisdictions and they are being used in the community to terrorize the community.

I want to go back to my original point. I have skipped three or four pages; time goes by so quickly here when one is speaking. My original point was that we are here as MPs with probably one of the greatest privileges, to come and speak on behalf of our community, and just because we may have different opinions, that does not mean that another member is right or that I am right. What it means is that we are bringing forward opinions from our communities.

Last year, I did a survey in Don Valley East. We send out a survey every year. We sent it out to the entire community, and just under 2,000 surveys came back. I want to share some of the numbers. Most questions were multiple-choice, but there was one question where I asked people if they support the freezing of handgun sales in Canada. I want to share the numbers. Remember, this is 2,000 people, so we know that, without question, there is a very low margin of error and it is good data. There were 82.2% of people in my community who said they do not support the sale of handguns; 8.7% were neutral and only 8.6% were opposed to this bill.

To me, that is exactly the message that I am bringing here to the House. I understand that we all have different perspectives, but in a community like mine, the importation of guns, the sales of guns and the use of guns have no place. My community does not support it and, on top of that, we know that, over the years, it has been really difficult and really challenging for a community like Don Valley East and the city of Toronto when it comes to gun violence.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that stood out to me very strongly was the member's statement that he does not believe Canadians should own guns. That is a view that he says his constituents share.

I represent a rural riding where people enjoy hunting and sport shooting. Generations of my constituents have passed down firearms to their relatives who enjoy hunting and sport shooting. They would take great issue with that. I would also point out to the hon. member that in Toronto, last year and so far this year, half of the individuals who have been charged with homicides have been individuals out on bail.

Even though we differ on whether Canadians should own firearms, does he at least agree that we should be evidence-based and go after the real cause of what is happening with crime, which is individuals who are out on bail, repeat offenders, rather than going after the law-abiding firearms owners in my riding of Fundy Royal?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be factual and we are going to resort to truths here, the member should read the bill. The bill is very clear about gun ownership. It says that if people have rifles, certain types of hunting rifles are still available. There is a clause in there that would allow people with handguns to continue to have their handguns; they just cannot be traded or resold. I would just suggest that the member read the bill for clarity and he would understand what the actual rules are. The farmers and the folks who hunt, who need those firearms, would still have the opportunity to use the appropriate gun for the work they do.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the advocacy that she has taken on gun violence. In question period, I often hear her speak on the issues that are impacting communities in different parts of the country, and I just want to say thanks for her advocacy.

Going back to my point, we all have different opinions on how we should do things around here. I think this bill is a well-balanced approach to looking for ways to mitigate gun violence in our country, and I am proud to support it today.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up some very important points. Our country is very diverse and there are different opinions. I would like to hear more from the member regarding what kind of impact this bill, coupled with many other measures, could end up having on a community like the one in his riding.