Debates of May 17th, 2023

Sitting Resumed

[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]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question.

I will send it back to her because I just told my colleague opposite that there is a committee in place that could later decide to take everything that was in the absurd amendment G‑4 and put it back in.

I do not know how my Bloc Québécois colleagues can trust the current government, but I for one cannot.

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Uqaqtittiji, for a party that touts contemporary messages to its constituents, I am surprised by the outdated messaging that this member has shared during his intervention in talking about the G-4 and G-46 amendments, which have been removed.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

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that we are going around in circles with this question. Yes, targeted firearms could be used by members of indigenous peoples, hunters or farmers, especially in my region.

I understand that people are concerned, and they have questioned me many times about this issue in the past few weeks. We cannot blame them for being afraid that, in the end, the firearms that were included in a previous amendment and were removed could be put back in. What is to stop the current government from banning them again once the law is in effect?

I find it difficult to understand why my NDP colleagues always blindly support a government that has the impertinence to often change its mind. What is to stop it from changing its mind again?

[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.

[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, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am talking about the bill that we are going to be voting on. I would encourage the entire Conservative caucus to read the bill that we are voting on. Unfortunately, even though there is so much good in this legislation that would make our communities safer and respond to many of the needs, things that not only Canadians but law enforcement officers and other stakeholders want to see, that does not matter because the leader of the Conservative Party has already taken a position.

As I said, it is the cash cow for the Conservative Party and its members are spreading misinformation, trying to create an atmosphere in which people are confused. They are doing it intentionally. They are doing it so they can raise money. That is why I say that the motivation, whether it is for the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc, is community safety, but not for the Conservatives. For them, it is about raising money for the next election.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague from Winnipeg North has to say about this. Tonight, people in the House keep complaining that the Conservatives do not understand the bill. In fact, they understand it very well, but they are twisting it, saying that the government is going to ban hunters' guns. However, if the government had done the job properly from the start and consulted with hunting groups, rather than moving forward with a bad bill that banned hunting rifles, we might not be in this position.

Would my colleague agree that we would not be where we are tonight, or at least, not so far down this path, if the government had done its job properly from the start rather than leaving bogus arguments as low-hanging fruit for the Conservatives to take advantage of?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we look at how the bill came to be, a great deal of consultation was done. As the Prime Minister has said in the past, at the end of the day, when the bill goes through the process in the chamber and goes to the standing committee, there is a reason why we have that process. It is so that if there are ways in which we can enhance and strengthen the bill, make it a more sound and better legislation, we should be doing that.

We can look at the number of opposition amendments that Liberals have supported over the years, even when we were in a majority government. That was often done. It was not done when Stephen Harper was prime minister. Could there have been more consultations? Whether in a provincial legislature or in the national legislature here in Ottawa, one can always do more consulting. There is no doubt about that. However, the homework was done on this particular bill. It is a great bill today and, as such, I expect that it will pass, despite the Conservatives' desire to filibuster and never see it pass.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to turn to the subject of other sport-shooting disciplines. The NDP had an amendment at committee that would have expanded the exemption of the handgun freeze to other disciplines, like the International Practical Shooting Confederation. We actually had our hopes up, because the member's Liberal colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, gave a beautiful speech at committee in support of our amendment. Unfortunately, he decided not to vote for it and abstained when push came to shove, but I was glad to see some Liberals support it.

We also have support from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which believes that existing law-abiding handgun owners should be able to continue to practise their sport. There are other countries around the world that have banned handguns but still allow their citizens to practise and compete in the sport. I think a lot of Canadians would find this to be a reasonable exemption for people who are obviously very passionate about what they do, put a lot of hours into it and train excessively to be the best they can be.

Why does the member not agree with his colleague from Kings—Hants? Why do the Liberals remain so obstructive to what I think a lot of people would see as a reasonable amendment to this bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the standing committee did a fabulous job in being able to go through this entire process, make the changes and come up with the necessary votes to be able to bring it to the state that the legislation is today.

I believe a majority of the House will, in fact, ultimately pass that. We are going to find out tomorrow, but the expectation is that it will pass.

I suspect that the member might want to introduce his changes in a possible private member's bill if he has not already started that.

At the end of the day, I think this is good legislation as is, and hopefully we will get it passed.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, a couple of us in the House asked questions of Conservative MPs, trying to see whether, in the bill, there was anything that restricted the use of firearms by hunters in Canada. They had trouble answering.

Can the MP be kind to us and to them and make it more clear as to whether, in the bill, there are actually things that are restricting the use of firearms by hunters?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and I share the same concern.

Others have actually posed that sort of question to members of the Conservative Party. They have been kind of dumbfounded, not knowing how to answer it, so they go right to the spin cycle that the Conservative Party says, and a part of that is “do not answer it”.

The simple answer is: zero. There are no restrictions. As I say, this is not, in any way, an attempt to put restrictions on those law-abiding gun owners.

We are being very respectful of that and we will continue to do so.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, it seems that the government members are looking for more information related to the firearms that Conservatives are concerned that the Liberals are seeking to ban, so I would seek unanimous consent from the House to table the amendment—

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

We cannot seek unanimous consent at this time.

The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

As he did in his speech about the Conservatives, I would like to talk to him about what the Liberals were doing several years ago. When the Liberals were the official opposition, some Liberal MPs swore up and down that they would never legalize drugs. The first thing they did in 2015 when they came to power was to legalize marijuana. The only thing stopping the Liberal government from legalizing hard drugs is the fact that they have a minority government.

Right now, Canadians are asking us to build their trust. They must trust the government on Bill C‑21 and believe that this legislation will never affect the guns of honest Canadians. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance said about an hour ago, here in the House, that the bill provides all the necessary tools to move forward and do even more.

Does the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance here in the House this evening mean that the Liberal government has a hidden agenda?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is no hidden agenda on the government's side. We are very much an accountable and transparent government.

It is interesting. The member wants to talk about one issue, and I can say that when I listen to the members talk across the way, they often talk about the bail issue.

We have Bill C-48 that has just been introduced. The Conservatives have a chance here. Bill C-48 is being exceptionally well received, virtually coast to coast to coast.

If they are genuinely concerned about bail reform, what they should be doing is saying, look, let us see if we can actually get this bill passed and out of second reading once it gets introduced, so that it can go to a standing committee.

One of the ways they can demonstrate, instead of all of the complaining and the unparliamentary word that I cannot use, instead of doing that, is to actually look at Bill C-48 and see if we can, once it is introduced for the second reading, get the support for it and send it to committee so that the committee will have all sorts of time then to be able to look at all of the wonderful things it is doing and seeing if maybe there are ways we can improve that.

I say Bill C-48 because the member went off this debate and this is how I would respond to it.

[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.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will ask the hon. member opposite the same question I have asked many times this evening during this debate.

The Conservatives keep saying that we will not allow people to use commonly used guns, whether it be hunters, farmers or whomever, and that these weapons would be banned forever and a day. Could the member list one legally used hunting rifle that would be banned by this bill?

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

Madam Speaker, what I will say to my friend, the member for Avalon, is that the Prime Minister said this in December: “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt.” Those are the words of the Prime Minister. It is true that the Liberals, after considerable pressure, withdrew their table-dropped amendments, but they have established a firearms advisory committee that is going to be tasked with future bans, and the Prime Minister has signalled very clearly that hunters are a target of the government.

[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, 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.

[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, some 20 women's organizations came before committee and said that the bill was problematic. Specifically, the so-called red flag provisions of the bill were problematic by virtue of the fact that section 117 of the Criminal Code already gives law enforcement the tools necessary to seize weapons when a woman is in danger.

What the Liberals are providing is that, instead of law enforcement doing its job, a woman in danger would now be required to go to court. Women's organizations have said this is burdensome, puts women at risk and does not do the job.