SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 199 - May/17/23

May/17/23 9:15:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I frankly resent the personal remarks of that member. I am a lawyer by background, and honour, ethics and integrity are important to me, as they are to the rest of my Conservative colleagues. I am not misinforming this House, and I am not stating falsehoods. I am telling the truth about what Bill C-21 would do and what this advisory committee would probably do. One just needs to look at the earlier announcements, which ban such rifles as the Winchester model 100, Winchester 1910, Sauer 303, Ruger Deerfield Carbine and Remington 740. I could go on. Clearly they want to do by order in council what they did not want to do openly in this House.

123 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/17/23 9:16:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, that was, frankly speaking, an embarrassing speech. First of all, the firearms advisory committee is a body that already exists. It is separate and apart from Bill C-21. Furthermore, the hon. colleague knows that the power to reclassify firearms already exists under the Criminal Code. I am willing to bet that if I challenge that member to name one rifle or shotgun that is going to be prohibited by Bill C-21, she would be unable to do so. I am going to sit down now and give her the opportunity to do just that.

98 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

May/17/23 9:17:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the whole point of a committee that allows the Prime Minister the power to make further regulations, without coming back and debating them through legislation in this House, is what we are talking about. The Liberals have already indicated the types of firearms that they were targeting before. I just listed several of them. There is no indication that they will not target them again. They have just given themselves an easier pathway to do it, by order in council. Order in council is done at the cabinet table or in the Prime Minister's Office. There is no need to come back to this House for consultation.

110 words

Mr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East, Lib.)

May/17/23 9:18:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, during the hon. member's speech, she actually said that the penalties would decrease for gun runners. She referred to them as traffickers or smugglers. However, it was clear in the proposed legislation that the maximum penalty would be extended from 10 years to 14 years. Could the hon. member clarify that point?

55 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

May/17/23 9:18:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I love this question, because I am a lawyer, and I used to be the parliamentary secretary for justice. I know the difference between a minimum mandatory sentence and a maximum mandatory sentence. Maximum mandatory sentences are virtually meaningless, other than meaning that justice could not go further. The whole point here is that the Liberals have taken a series of dangerous, violent crimes, with firearms, and lessened the penalties for them. It is clear. It is on the record. If the member was listening, I listed them in my speech.

93 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/17/23 9:19:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the speech that the opposition whip gave, which articulated some of the really important context that highlights some of the debate. It is clear that the Liberals, in the work they did in committee, wanted to go further. In fact, there were members of the committee who said that. This legislation gives them the authority to go further with a secretive process that would likely, in the Prime Minister's own words, target law-abiding firearms owners. My question for the opposition whip is this: Is that secretive process the best way to increase public safety, or would it actually be putting the real criminals behind bars?

112 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

May/17/23 9:20:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, of course the answer to that is no. Orders in council are done for the convenience of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. They are not done to have a transparent or open process. They are not done to subject what is being done or changed to debate and discussion. When this bill was originally tabled, there was so much backlash that the Liberals had to pull it all back and find another way to do what they wanted to do. There was opposition from constituents, Canadians right across the country, from coast to coast to coast, and from the Conservatives. The current way is now less transparent than what we had before.

115 words

Orders

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC)

May/17/23 9:21:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I will try to measure up to my colleague. It is not easy to speak after the official opposition whip. She gave a wonderful speech and did a great job of illustrating the challenges we face. Today, I am speaking to Bill C-21, this government's flawed gun bill. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the hard work my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul has done on this file, as well as the work put in by all of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Since the bill was introduced in the House, the Liberal Party has changed direction so often that it is difficult to keep up. The Liberals' inordinate attacks on the Canadian people have not gone unnoticed. The Liberals have shown their true colours to Canadians. Instead of cracking down on illegal guns and gang members, this government has introduced legislation targeting hunters, farmers and indigenous communities. As usual, the Liberal government is completely out of touch with rural Canada, widening the all-too-real divide in our country. No one believes that going after hunters will reduce violent crime across the country. This is part of the Liberal plan to divide Canadians. As Conservatives, we support common-sense gun policies that prevent guns from falling into the hands of dangerous criminals. The most important thing we can do is to crack down on smugglers at the borders and prevent illegal weapons from getting into Canada and falling into the hands of criminals and gang members. I have had the opportunity to talk with many citizens in my riding about this bill. I talked to Mr. Vachon from Saint‑Georges, who served in the army for 14 years and who is very worried about the impact this bill will have on him and his ability to hunt and sport shoot. He is an advocate for the safe use of firearms and understands very well that those who commit crimes with illegal firearms will not be concerned at all about this bill. The only people who are worried about it are law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. I also talked to Mr. Deschênes from Sainte‑Marie, who is extremely concerned about the impact this bill will have on shooting clubs in the region. They may have to close their doors in the future. He is a federal agent and needs to regularly train at these shooting ranges to keep up his skills and keep himself safe. He emphasized the importance of these shooting ranges for public safety because many police services use them to perfect their skills and maintain their accreditation, and they also educate other Canadians about gun safety. Finally, Ms. Turcotte from Beauceville contacted my office just last week to express her dissatisfaction with amendments G‑4 and G‑46. These amendments were completely inappropriate and were subsequently withdrawn. However, hunters still worry about what the Liberal government will do next. How far is it prepared to go? Will it amend the same bill once it comes into force, introduce those amendments and shut down debate again? In my riding, countless farmers also contacted me for fear that they would no longer be able to protect their livestock, which is their livelihood. The problem with this government is that it has a strange way of sending messages. It claims to have discussed this bill with stakeholders, but when the text of the bill and the amendments were published, many groups, such as hunters, indigenous groups and professional sport shooters were taken completely by surprise. A member of the Alberta Mounted Shooters Association said that they are a very safety-conscious group. She added that before they can become mounted shooters, they must complete training, testing and background checks to obtain their restricted gun licences. They want more Canadians to practice their sport. They want to grow and develop skilled target shooters and equestrians. They also want the ability to continue the legacy for our youth and produce more world champions. At the rate this bill is going, I do not know if there will be any sport shooters left when this is all over. New athletes will have so many regulatory hurdles to overcome that any shooting discipline outside of the Olympics will be eradicated. Even Canadian Olympians will be forced to spend countless hours obtaining the necessary licences to travel with their sporting equipment. This lack of comprehensive consultation has not just affected hunters and sport shooters; it has also affected the most important segment of the Canadian population, indigenous communities. As Chief Jessica Lazare of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake put it, the lack of thorough and comprehensive consultation with indigenous communities is demonstrated by the incoherence and inconsistency of the proposed legislation, the amendments and the lack of recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples. This is further proof of the complete ignorance shown by this government and the Minister of Public Safety. Let us talk about how the Prime Minister continues to fail Canadians when it comes to public safety. With bills like C-5, the government is making our country less safe. Bill C-5 removes mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. How backwards can this government be? For people who are guilty of armed robbery or firearms trafficking or who recklessly discharge a weapon, it is easier to get away with it thanks to the Prime Minister's soft on crime approach. This government has made things twice as bad with Bill C‑75. The Prime Minister's bail policy has triggered a wave of violent crime in our country. Our communities feel less safe, and the Liberal government is responsible for making the situation worse. A common-sense Conservative government will ensure that violent reoffenders stay behind bars while awaiting trial, and it will bring back the mandatory sentences for serious violent crimes that were cut by this government. The bail reform measures that were announced this week are reactive and respond to weeks of news about the dramatic increase in violent crime in this country. Why does the government always have to play catch-up? It is incapable of getting ahead on anything. A Conservative government will ensure Canadians' safety and introduce bills that will truly keep Canadians safe. Does the government realize that illegal guns are used in 99% of gun crimes? More than 85% of those guns are smuggled in from the United States. Why are they not allocating more resources at the borders to prevent these firearms from entering? In my riding, there are two border crossings that do not even have CBSA officers. Truckers coming into Canada simply pick up the phone and call the nearest border service officer to open the gate and the shipments come into Canada without any screening. I am sure this may surprise some members of the House, but it shows just how low a priority border security is for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety. In conclusion, I think everyone in this House wants to make Canada a safer place to live, but Bill C-21 was never the right way to go about it. This bill was flawed from the start, and the government has completely missed the mark. I also think the NDP has a lot to do with this failure, as the New Democrats continue to support the government in this process. However, many of the NDP members are from rural ridings. I hope their constituents have been watching them all this time and will remember this failure. Conservatives will always be there to keep Canadians safe and to protect law-abiding gun owners, whether they are hunters, farmers, sport shooters or indigenous people. We will always protect their right to own and use firearms safely and lawfully. We will ensure that violent criminals and smugglers are prosecuted, instead of our law-abiding neighbours and farmers.

1338 words

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

May/17/23 9:31:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member the same question that I have asked other members here tonight: Can the member opposite name one shotgun or rifle that is currently used by hunters and farmers in their regular hunting activities that this bill would actually ban?

46 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux

May/17/23 9:31:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, these guns used by hunters were in an initial amendment that was later withdrawn. What guarantee do we have that this government, which is known for breaking its promises, will not bring them back and submit them to the committee established and created by the government and whose members are appointed by the government? I believe that the answer is obvious.

63 words

Hunters
Guns

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/17/23 9:32:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

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.

112 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux

May/17/23 9:33:15 p.m.
Watch

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.

73 words

Trust

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/17/23 9:33:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

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?

88 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux

May/17/23 9:34:52 p.m.
Watch

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?

132 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/17/23 9:36:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

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.

2306 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

May/17/23 9:56:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

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.

136 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/17/23 9:57:11 p.m.
Watch

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.

167 words

Caucus

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/17/23 9:58:24 p.m.
Watch

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?

141 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/17/23 9:59:07 p.m.
Watch

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.

193 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/17/23 10:00:19 p.m.
Watch

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?

225 words