Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, we do know that there would be an ongoing review, because it is mandated from within, with regard to labelling. As I indicated to the member who just provided another question, I was not actually at the committee. What I do know is that there were committee amendments brought forward from different political entities, and I thought there was a high sense of political co-operation. We saw government amendments and also opposition amendments pass, and I suspect there would have been a more detailed answer to the specifics at the committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I am a former health critic for the Province of Manitoba. The quality of air, whether from stubble burning or forest fires, is an issue that came up periodically when I was acting in that capacity. There is no doubt that emergency facilities, doctors and so forth, fill up. Air pollution is very real. It is tangible. I was not part of every aspect of the legislation. I do not necessarily know exactly what the legislation would do with regard to air quality, but I would concur that it is an issue we should all be concerned about, and I suspect that, at some point in the future, we will even be dealing with it in a more detailed way.

Mr. Speaker, who am I to defend the Conservatives? I can say that it would be awfully awkward when they take a look at their own party platform. We know that, as candidates, when we go knocking on doors, we are there supporting the party platform. All 338 Conservative candidates made it very clear in the last election that they do support a price on pollution. Some members have heckled that they take it back, but hindsight is 20/20. The bottom line is that they did do a flip-flop on that. The relevance to that issue, to what we are debating today, is that, once again, we see the Conservative Party taking a flip-flop on an important piece of environmental legislation. I think that Canadians would be very disappointed, given that it includes things such as the right to a healthy environment. The Conservatives are actually going to be voting against it.

Mr. Speaker, coming from the province of Manitoba, where the Liberal Party is maybe not as strong as it could be, where we did not have party status, I often found it most effective, when working with the government members and ministers, to work alongside them, to provide suggestions, ideas and amendments and so forth. There are different ways in which one can try to get things passed through. I know there are challenges to not having party status. I faced those challenges for many years in the Manitoba legislature. There is no doubt the committee could have given more attention to a number of the issues that the leader of the Green Party had brought forth.

Mr. Speaker, he did not answer the question I actually posed to him, to tell us what within the tailings ponds the member is so offended by. Instead, he says that we are taking a flip-flop. He should look in a mirror. The Conservatives are actually saying no to Bill S-5. They are going to vote against Bill S-5 because the leadership within the Conservative Party has given them that instruction. I think there are a number of Conservatives who are scratching their heads and asking why they are doing so. At the end of the day, there is no real rationale other than that the Conservative leader told them to.

Madam Speaker, if former prime minister Stephen Harper had provided dollars for the infrastructure necessary, municipalities like Montreal would not necessarily have had to dump raw sewage into the water. It takes time to build the infrastructure. Quite frankly, it is disappointing to see that the Conservative Party has changed its position on this legislation. Does the member feel any sense of remorse in voting against a bill that the Conservatives were going to vote in favour of just two weeks ago, given the principles of toxic chemicals and the right to have a healthy environment, which is something that would be established in this legislation in a substantial way?

Mr. Chair, there are many aspects we could talk about regarding how progressive the budget is in terms of supporting Canadians in a very real and tangible way. The minister referred to the dental program and how it will be expanded to incorporate seniors and people with disabilities. It has already had an impact on children under the age of 12. I am wondering if the minister could provide some sense of the number of children who have benefited to date under the program and the positive impact this program will have, much like the $10-a-day child care program, on our communities throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I present today a petition signed by many people from Winnipeg. Recognizing the exceptional growth of the Indo-Canadian community in Canada, and in my home province of Manitoba, they are looking at ways in which we can increase the number of international flights between Canada and India, as cited in the past by me. They would love to see something direct from Winnipeg to Amritsar at the very least. The people who are signing these petitions are recognizing the growth of the community and the need to have more international flights. They are appealing not only to the Government of Canada but to the different international airlines and the Winnipeg International Airport.

Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot about stats and numbers. The one that really sinks in for me personally is the fact that we have seen reversed overdoses through safe consumption sites, to the tune of over 45,000 since 2017. Let us think about the profound impact that has had on thousands of lives. That is the number that comes to my mind. It is a very real and tangible number. All one needs to do is listen to what people near safe consumption sites have to say and what the first responders and the many different experts are saying. A number of years ago, when I was sitting with third party status, we had a big debate about consumption sites. The reason we were debating them then was that the Conservative Party wanted to shut down Insite, a consumption site located in downtown east Vancouver. They wanted to shut it down. If it had not been for a Supreme Court of Canada decision, they might have been successful at shutting it down. Because the Supreme Court gave a wake-up call to Stephen Harper, ultimately that site was able to survive. If we take a look at how that site came to be, I think it amplifies or exemplifies why it is that we need to recognize that it is not just about one government alone. It takes a community. Individuals, the province, the municipality and first responders all came to the table and articulated a wide spectrum of reasons and rationale as to why consumption sites are important. That happened many years ago. It was about two decades ago. What we saw was that Stephen Harper attempted to shut it down. He was the prime minister, and he attempted to shut it down. That is—

Madam Speaker, the then prime minister was unsuccessful. Now we will take a look at the current leader of the Conservative Party. I have argued in the past that his party is more to the right. It is about as extreme as one can get with respect to the right wing, if we listen to some of the things Conservatives say. Just yesterday, they were being accused of misrepresentation of facts. Once again, what we see is opposition parties outside of the Conservatives, and the government, correcting the opposition. A previous question to my colleague suggested that we are politicizing it. Is that really true? Members should read the motion and listen to some of the speeches. We have had several Conservatives stand up, and what are they saying? They are following the lead of their leader. I printed out what their leader said. Here is how he started off his comments in moving the motion. He stated, “After eight years of the Prime Minister, everything feels broken. Life costs more. Work does not pay. Housing costs have doubled. The Prime Minister divides to control the people.” Other members have stood up and said the same thing. Like a bunch of lemmings and seals, they follow suit and support whatever it is the Conservative leader says. Facts do not mean anything.

Yes, it is true, Madam Speaker. At the end of the day, we need to recognize the impact this is having in our communities. Even without the provincial government, the federal government worked with Sunshine House in Manitoba so we would have a mobile overdose prevention unit for the city of Winnipeg. I could talk about areas in Winnipeg North, like Point Douglas and others, where there is a real and tangible need with respect to the impacts this has on real people. Conservatives want to throw all of it away, even though they know full well that it has been successful in saving lives. They try to tie other things to it in order to simplify it in one way and complicate it in another for their bumper stickers. That is where their concern lies. The following quotes from Ben Perrin are interesting. Many of the current Conservatives may not know who Ben Perrin is. They can do a quick Google search and will find he was a senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister's Office when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. He dealt with issues like public safety, immigration and justice. He was the primary adviser to Stephen Harper. This is what Ben Perrin has to say about today's Conservative Party: “[They are] rehashing Conservative, war-on-drugs tropes that have been long since discredited and have been found to be not only ineffective but costly and deadly.” He also stated, “There is no indication that prescribed safe supply is contributing to illicit drug deaths.” Members will love this one from Ben Perrin, published in The Hill Times: ...no public figure should use real human misery as the backdrop for a political pitch. If he insisted on doing so, how much better it would it have been if he’d stayed a night in the tent city, and talked to the people who live there. That way, he could have told them how he would improve their lives, and perhaps gain a better understanding of their problems. Using them as props to peddle his snake oil was disgraceful. That is from Ben Perrin, a significant policy adviser under Stephen Harper. We have things like the Supreme Court of Canada and even top Conservatives and advisers, real people. We have law agencies. We have other jurisdictions and levels of government, like the Province of B.C. Do the Conservatives understand everything that has gone into place in order to make those consumption sites a reality? It is not just that the federal government says it is going to pop some here and there. There is a great deal of effort that is put into these sites, which are located in different places in Canada. Let there be no doubt, as I started off my comments, that there were 45,000-plus instances where we have actually seen a reverse, when someone was literally dying, and because of their getting medical attention, they were able to reverse that overdose. It has saved thousands of lives, and the Conservative Party wants to get rid of them. That is what they are saying today, then they say there are other aspects they want to invest in. The government is already investing in those. The Government of Canada is working with provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders to ensure that, as much as possible, there is a coordinated approach to dealing with what are very serious issues. I only wish I had enough time to be able to talk about the impacts, whether they are on the individual who is addicted, the family members, the communities or the many different systems. This is very much a health issue, and it needs to be treated as such. Individuals need to be supported, and this government, with the co-operation of at least some of the opposition parties, will be able to continue to move in that direction.

Madam Speaker, that is one of the reasons why I say that a part of this is recognizing that it is just not the federal government alone. That is what I like about Insite. With Insite, what we saw was the Province of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver and Ottawa working with many different stakeholders, making sure that we would be able to have a successful consumption site. It has been exceptionally successful over the last couple of decades. There is a need to go beyond that, because we can talk about health treatment. That is why we have seen a national government invest in mental health and give generational support, somewhere close to $200 billion over the next 10 years, so that we will be able to have a quality health care system. It is very much a health care issue. We have a national government that is investing billions of dollars in housing and supporting provinces and being able to provide appropriate housing. There are all sorts of—

Madam Speaker, the government has stepped up in working with the different stakeholders. We deal with prevention, enforcement, treatment and harm reduction. We are working the best we can, not only from a financial point of view but also from a legislative point of view, in order to save lives and do the right thing. I am still waiting for one Conservative to stand up and say they actually support consumption sites.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member is saying. It is a heavy decision that ultimately does need to be made. There is no question about that. I look at how important it is that we continue to be in touch with the health care professionals, that we continue to be in touch with other jurisdictions and stakeholders, and that we make sure that we continue to move forward. This is very much an emotional issue that people have very strong convictions on. I do not think there is an easy answer to this. From my perspective, I think that we have to continue the dialogue and have more faith in the system. Can he provide his thoughts with respect to that?

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to an amendment made in committee on Bill C-281, standing in the name of the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. Without commenting on the merits of the amendment in question, I submit that it proposes a new concept that exceeds the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading. Specifically, the amendment to clause 2 of the bill would add a new obligation to the minister to “develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.” When the amendment was proposed, the chair of the committee ruled it as inadmissible. However, a majority of the members on the committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair and then proceeded to adopt the amendment, which is now found in the bill as reprinted by the House on May 4. I submit that the ruling of the chair of the foreign affairs committee was correct and that our procedures must be respected. As a result, the proper course of action to address this matter is to order a reprint of the bill without the offending amendment.

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?

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 go 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, one of the things I find most interesting about this whole debate, whether it is Bill C-21 or anything related to guns, is that the Conservative Party members consistently spread misinformation and they do that in order to generate funds for their political party, literally millions of dollars over the year. That is the primary reason for the spreading of misinformation that we see. My concern or my question for the member is this: Does he not see the benefit in terms of having legislation that would make our communities safer? When will the Conservative Party put the safety of our community ahead of Conservative fundraising?

Mr. Speaker, I will get a chance to expand upon this, but members should not try to fool anyone who is following this particular debate. The Conservative Party of Canada has consistently spread misinformation, whether it has been by trying to give the impression to hunters that we are after their guns, or whether it has been on indigenous rights. I believe it is being done intentionally for one reason, and that is to raise funds. The question I would put to the member opposite is the same question I asked his colleague: When will the Conservative Party put the safety of Canadians ahead of raising money for its political party?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-21. It is important for us to recognize that often legislation, like the budget, is brought into the chamber that is a reflection of what Canadians expect of the Government of Canada. Leger did a poll regarding the manner in which the Government of Canada is moving toward the issue of gun control. There were 84% of Canadians who feel that this government is on the right track when it comes to gun control and the legislation being brought forward. I would like to quote an article. The headline is, “MCC report calls for stricter gun laws”, and it states, “The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead makes several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada’s gun laws.” This is significant. The commission is a non-partisan body. The chair of the commission, Michael MacDonald, is a retired Nova Scotia chief justice and the other commissioners are Leanne Fitch, who served for seven years as the chief of police for Fredericton Police Force, and Kim Stanton, a lawyer and legal scholar. Many recommendations called for stricter gun laws. This was earlier this year. The article went on to say, “The commission also determined that the safety of women survivors of intimate-partner violence is 'put at risk by the presence of firearms and ammunition in the household.'“ One of the Conservative members was critical of the red flag. When I think of the red flag component of the legislation, I think of a domestic abuse victim having to be put into a position where the spouse is a gun owner. Under the red flag now, this individual would be able to raise the issue in court and have the person's name kept off the record. I see that as a positive thing. If not directly, indirectly the commission refers to that. Those are the types of things in the legislation. We hear members talk about ghost guns, something very real. If we were to check with law enforcement agencies from coast to coast to coast, we would find there is concern about the growing appetite to produce these ghost guns. We need this legislation. It would assist law enforcement officers to deal with this very serious issue. Let us think about it. A 3-D printer and someone with a mischievous criminal mind are a bad combination. The legislation before us would deal with that. I want to pick up on a question that I posed to members opposite, because I really do believe that the Conservative Party's primary motivation in opposing this legislation is not because of gun owners, but because of the way Conservatives have manipulated the issue to the degree that they have raised millions of dollars for their party over the years. It is somewhat ironic when we stop and think about it. When the gun registry, for example, came into being, it was actually a Conservative idea. A Conservative senator brought it to Kim Campbell and Kim Campbell moved forward with it. She was a Progressive Conservative prime minister, and I underline the word “progressive”. The current Conservative Party has abandoned that word. It has taken such a hard right turn. The other day, someone sent me a Twitter feed of the current leader of the Conservative Party. I could not believe it. Do we want to talk about motivation to run in elections, feeding conspiracy theories? It is totally amazing how far-fetched the leader of the Conservative Party is. He is in the non-reality zone, if I could put it that way, absolutely fact-free. If we take a look at the gun issue, I genuinely believe that the Conservative Party is using this legislation as a mechanism to continue to spread information that just is not true. The member says, well, what kind of information? Trying to give hunters the impression that the government is after their guns: it is hard to believe. It is not true. We are not. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but we would not know based on some of the social media postings that we hear about coming from the Conservative Party. At the end of the day, whether it is issues such as the gun registry from many years ago or other types of legislation that have come forward, the far right within the Conservative Party wants to use anything and everything that it can feed to that grouping of people in order to generate funds. I think that when we listen to some of the reports that have come out, like I cited at the very beginning with the MCC, an apolitical, non-partisan commission, a commission that everyone supported, the report that it came forward with is very clear. If we take a look at the information that we received from Canadians as a whole, such as, as I say, the Leger poll, 84% are saying we are on the right track. When we talk about gun crimes, we have actually seen a decrease by 5% between 2020 and 2021. Unlike the Conservative Party, we are after illegal guns that are coming up from the United States. Last year, 1,200 guns and tens of thousands of weapons were seized at the border. I will compare that to any year of Stephen Harper. It is a combination of things that this government is doing to make our communities safer when it comes to gun violence, whether it is budget measures, supporting our border control officers, providing supports for law enforcement officers or enhancing the tools that are going to make a difference. These are all the types of actions that this government has taken in response to what we know Canadians are genuinely concerned about. I would suggest that my Conservative friends need to put the safety and concerns of Canadians ahead of political party financing and fundraising, to look in the mirror and understand the true value of this legislation, which is supported by all members, except for the Conservative members, I must say, and get behind it. This is a good opportunity for them to take a flip-flop and support this legislation. By supporting this legislation, they would be telling Canadians that they support safer communities. They support legislation that is going to make a positive difference. That is a powerful message and, coincidence would have it, it is factual and it would be nice to see coming from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, the member just made my point. He is giving a false impression. He is trying to say to farmers, hunters and indigenous people that we are going to take away their guns. That is balderdash. That is not the case. Does the member not realize that he is doing a great disservice to the whole debate, a debate that Canadians from coast to coast are concerned about? They want safer communities. This legislation would provide safer communities. On the record, in terms of rural versus urban, the member might note that I periodically get the chance to stand up and address legislation. I always welcome that. I never look at it as an urban-rural split. I like to think that I am very sensitive to all rural issues. It is one of the reasons I spend a lot of time talking about agricultural issues.

Mr. Speaker, right off, I would mention the issue of ghost guns. That is a growing issue that has been raised by law enforcement officers all over the country. I believe this is a great attempt to deal with that specific issue. I want to pick up on the member's comments that there has been a great deal of co-operation, in good part because of the NDP and the Bloc. We have seen stronger, healthier legislation than when it was first introduced. It goes to show that if the opposition works with the government and the government works with the opposition, we can have better legislation. We do appreciate that support.

Mr. Speaker, there is a sense of urgency to the legislation. One of the reasons it is going to be able to pass is because of the support of the New Democrats to bring in the time allocation that will be necessary. The Conservative Party of Canada has made it very clear that Conservative members will not support it; they will go out of their way to ensure that this legislation never sees the light of day. Without the support of at least one opposition party, the Liberal government would not be able to get the legislation passed, because we need time allocation. Otherwise, the legislation would not pass because of the commitment by the Conservative Party not to see it pass.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments that the member has put on the record, but I would like to emphasize that, as a government, it is more than just the legislation. She expresses a little bit of disappointment. Maybe I can give her some words of encouragement. We have seen, for example, a very high number of guns being confiscated at the border in the year before. I would suggest that this was probably one of the higher years of gun confiscations that we have seen, maybe, in the last decade-plus. I think that we have seen budgetary measures that support our border controls, as well as enhancements for law enforcement officers. There has been the legislation that we are talking about today. I think that, for the first time in a long time, we actually have a government that understands the issue, and 84% of Canadians, through a Leger poll, are indicating that the Government of Canada is on the right track. Could she provide her thoughts in regard to the overall approach of the government in dealing with this very serious issue?

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the member is voting against this legislation, Bill C-21. In Bill C-21, we see the issue of ghost guns being addressed. Police agencies, virtually across Canada, have expressed a growing issue with ghost guns. They look at the legislation from that perspective as an important tool. I said this earlier, but it is interesting that the Conservatives tend to want to use Bill C-21 as a fundraising issue as opposed to an issue to provide a higher sense of security for Canadians. Why do the Conservatives not support the ghost gun aspect of the legislation? Why do they not support making our communities safer?

Mr. Speaker, talk about conspiracy theories. Over the weekend, the leader of the Conservative Party was talking about passports. Colleagues would not believe how weird that discussion got. The more I listened to him, the more I wondered if this guy is real. Can the leader of the official opposition really be that much of a conspiracist? Then I hear one of his inner circle members of Parliament deliver a speech that kind of blew me away. If one wants to motivate people to ensure that the Conservatives never get into government, one can have them listen to the tweet from the leader of the Conservative Party and this member's speech. Can the member indicate how she can justify this when the Conservative Party of Canada is espousing all sorts of misinformation, almost on a daily basis, not only on this legislation? How does she justify saying that we are spreading misinformation when the degree to which the Conservatives are using this legislation to raise money is fairly well documented? It is not about concern over Canadians' safety.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of comments that the member expressed. I wanted to highlight that it is great to see that Bill C-21 is being supported by the Bloc and the New Democrats. We have seen amendments that have been brought forward. It is good, healthy and stronger legislation as a direct result. It is a little bit more than the legislation, which is good. One of the interesting stats that I heard about had to do with border crossings as 1,200 illegal guns were acquired last year, in addition to 73,000 other weapons. Would the member not agree that it is good we bring forward legislation such as this through budgetary measures to support our law enforcement officers so that they are better equipped and supported in dealing with getting illegal guns off the street?

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing in terms of the Conservative Party's overall approach to Bill C-21. As I indicated earlier this afternoon, the Conservative Party seems to be more concerned about raising money with Bill C-21 than it is about delivering safety to our communities. A good example of that is how this legislation would have the red flags and would deal with ghost guns. These are the types of things that would have a very positive impact, but the Conservatives say they are not going to support this legislation, because they want to raise money. That is more important. Can the member indicate to the House when the Conservative Party is going to recognize that the safety of Canadians is more important than raising money for the Conservative Party?

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned common sense. Last year, and I mentioned this earlier, there were 1,200 guns taken away from borders. There were 73,000 weapons seized at the border. This is a government that has actually invested in our border controls. We can contrast that with Stephen Harper's time, when there were actually cutbacks. Was there ever a year, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when he received even half of the 1,200 guns and 73,000 weapons that we received last year? I suspect the answer is no, but I would be interested in what the member has to say on it.

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the fact that there are some very progressive measures in the legislation, including one around ghost guns. Law enforcement agencies have talked a great deal about how this is becoming an issue of a very serious nature, and they are looking for legislation. We are attempting, in the legislation, to provide that tool to law enforcement, and it is being well received. What does the member have to say about that aspect? Could the member provide some sense of why the Conservatives continue to say that this legislation would prevent people from being able to hunt, or to give that sort of impression, when we know it is just not the case?

Madam Speaker, what is very clear from the member is that the Conservative Party is responding more to the gun lobbyists. He cites constituents and says he will give their first names, but not the last names because he does not want the government to attack them in any fashion. There is this whole fear factor that the Conservative Party continues to spread with misinformation, as if hunters, indigenous people and other law-abiding gun owners are going to be attacked by this legislation, when it is just not true. Why do the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation when they know many of the things they are saying are just not true?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the spreading of misinformation. I will refer to the most recent Conservative speaker, who indicated, for example, that there is an airsoft ban. Well, there is no airsoft ban. That has been changed, and the Conservatives know that, yet they still talk about an airsoft ban. The member also made reference to ghost guns not being dealt with, citing a specific letter. Again, ghost guns are being dealt with in the legislation. What we hear consistently from the Conservative Party is misinformation. This is not an attack on the hunters, the farmers and indigenous people. I wonder if the member could provide a comment on what she believes is the damage caused by the spreading of misinformation.

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong to make the assertion he is alleging that this gun registration, or attack on guns, would affect our hunters, farmers and indigenous people. It is just wrong to say that those guns are going to be taken away. The information the Conservatives are putting out there is definitely misleading, and I am being kind in my wording. There are some benefits within the legislation. I have made reference to one, and I will continue to do so. Ghost guns are a serious issue across Canada. This is a wonderful step forward in dealing with that issue. Could the member clearly indicate what parts of the legislation he does support, if any at all.