Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71  Madam Speaker, I agree that providing police the resources to deal with gun and gang violence and drug enforcement is critical as we move forward in this day and age. However, what I find disturbing are the proposals I see in Bill C-71, which go in the opposite direction. Rather than making participation in a criminal organization a more serious criminal offence, and it is difficult to prosecute in the first place, the Liberals would make the possibility of a hybrid offence, like a dual offence, a summary conviction.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71  Madam Speaker, during committee, I personally asked witnesses a number of times whether they would support legislation that would empower background checks and then deal with or prevent those who had been dealt with under provincial mental health act legislation from acquiring a firearm that would present a danger to themselves or to others.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71  Madam Speaker, I thank my friend across the way, who I also respect personally and professionally. I believe background checks serve a purpose. Currently, we have a five-year background check and a daily check for those who already have a valid licence. However, there is a matter of concern that I have heard from gun owners across the country.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to provide opportunities for members of the public safety and national security committee to travel to meet with additional stakeholders on the many issues raised by experts, academics, user groups, victims groups, and more, who have been flagged to our committee.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71  That is exactly it. What is the Liberal government thinking, and why does it not understand that groups like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which represents hundreds of thousands of people in the province of Ontario, suggest that this bill is not going to do what it suggests it is going to do?

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71  Mr. Speaker, I find it really rich that when my hon. colleague started his speech, he used the word “distortions”. He is accusing this side of the House of distorting the facts. There is no greater distorter of facts than the Liberals. When I have the opportunity to speak in a couple of minutes, I will speak to that specifically, how the evidence and the stats have been so manipulated to try to sway public opinion that it is actually quite abhorrent.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71  Madam Speaker, I am curious to know the member's perspective. We heard the Toronto Police Service say that Bill C-71 does not address gun crime directly. Could the member explain what he thinks the bill does and why the Liberals are in such a hurry to get it passed?

Justice  Mr. Speaker, with their criminal justice reforms, the Liberals are making a bad situation worse. Under Bill C-75, the Liberals have created the option to proceed with a large number of violent offences by way of summary conviction rather than indictable offence. This means that violent criminals may receive no more than six months in jail or a fine for their crimes.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege, which is in addition to the one I presented yesterday. As you know, yesterday I raised a question of privilege regarding documents on the website of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police concerning the implementation of Bill C-71, a piece of legislation presently before the public safety committee.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, turning back to today's question of privilege, I am rising because these online government publications presume the adoption of Bill C-71 by Parliament. There is no caveat given by the RCMP that the legislation is subject to parliamentary approval, and there is no acknowledgement of the parliamentary process at all, in fact.

Privilege  Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege about online publications of the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, respecting Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms. These documents, found on the RCMP website, were brought to my attention yesterday, which is why I am rising today, the earliest opportunity after I became aware of the documents.

National Security Act, 2017  Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member said in his speech that the central tenet of Bill C-59 is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was under the impression that Bill C-59 was about protecting Canadians and national security. Let us keep that in mind. During the clause-by-clause at the public safety and national security committee, over 235 amendments were proposed.

National Security Act, 2017  Mr. Speaker, we heard from witnesses that the gap in Canada currently being able to effectively prosecute returning ISIS terrorists, or those who leave our country and return to join a terrorist organization, is the gap between intelligence and evidence. There were a number of great amendments, and one that specifically targeted that.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. If the Conservative government was so horrible in bringing people to this country and had such an abysmal record, why in the 10 years the Conservatives were in government did they admit into this country more than two and a half million people, while the Liberals in a similar 10-year time period admitted barely more than two million?

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, from my research and watching Canadian politics as an observer back in the day, I understand that things take time to change. The government is a big ship, and if we are trying to make changes to it, it takes time to do. I have a staff member who has been in a constituency office working on immigration files for nearly 20 years and who says that some of the changes the Conservative government implemented in its 10 years in office started to play out very well in immigration processing times toward the end of 2013-14, 2015-16, and now into 2016-17.