Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to start by expressing, on behalf of all of us, my condolences to Jim's family. I want to share something with this committee before I get into the substance.

I had the chance to speak to Jim on Thursday after his bill was sent to third reading. He said something that I wanted to share with everyone, because it was actually about us. Jim said that, among his parliamentary experiences, working with this committee was one of his greatest joys. He went on to say that it was because we had managed to figure out how to do complicated things together.

In the spirit of that, I am channelling what Jim said to me: “I know it's tough, but you guys are going to get this done together.” I just wanted to share that with everybody. I think that's been a guiding principle for a lot of us in this committee. We've had our differences in how we've come up with things and come through things, but I think it's an important message for us to reflect on as we go into the holidays.

I want to thank my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP for signing the 106(4) and for all of us coming together to do that. I think it's an important step. I think it channels a bit of what Jim would have wanted us to do.

We've said from the beginning that Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. We've also said that we want to make sure that hunters, farmers and indigenous communities are not affected in that process. There have been a lot of conversations in the last few weeks about how best to protect Canadians from gun violence. It's an emotional and complicated issue. A lot of people are counting on us to act in the right way to help prevent gun violence and to make sure we're taking dangerous weapons off the streets.

There's been a lot of discussion about the amendments to Bill C-21, and rightly so. I think this, of course, would create the standard legal definition for what constitutes an assault-style firearm. The definition of an assault-style firearm is a complex, technical endeavour. It's not really something that lends itself to broad generalizations, which is how we seem to want to do politics these days. The gun community, gun control advocates and Canadians of all political stripes have asked for a clear definition so that everyone knows which side of the line they are on.

There's been a lot of misinformation and confusion around this amendment that was presented to the committee. A lot of people have taken advantage of what is not known by others to fan outrage. There's also a lot of misinformation from people who just don't know. I personally had a couple of people reach out to me who said, “Listen, I have this particular gun. I'm concerned that it is now banned.” I went back, checked for them and was able to reassure them that it was not. We don't all have that luxury. I think we need to find a way to make sure that we are able to reassure people of whether or not their guns are going to be on this list.

I think the most important part of this is making sure that we're hearing voices that feel they haven't been heard, so we can hear different points of view to help make this better legislation and dispel some of the myths—and, frankly, so that we can do our job, if we can, to improve this legislation and make it even better. When it comes to working through those guns that are on this list that perhaps should not have been, then we should have those conversations together.

I think before us is a motion that allows us to do exactly that. I think this, if passed, will give us the opportunity to hear from new witnesses, which I think is critical. It allows us to consult broadly and take down the temperature. I think we all want to do that. It allows us to listen to different perspectives and actually have a healthy discussion based on facts.

Now, that said, we've heard from a lot of witnesses already. We've had hours of testimony from government officials. They have sought to dispel misinformation or concerns about certain guns with technical expertise. We may not have liked their style, but they did a really good job of going through the guns that people thought were on the list but that actually weren't. They clarified that for Canadians to give people the comfort that their guns were not caught on this list.

What I would suggest, humbly, is that we use this motion to really narrow down our discussions and iron out the specifics of the amendment. Let's call on people who are informed as to how amendment G-4 will impact the public. Let's try not to get lost in partisanship. Let's actually make sure Canadians have the facts they need. Let's do it in a way that allows voices that have not been heard to be heard. I think that's really important.

I know all of my colleagues and I are committed to working collaboratively to make sure that no guns that are commonly used for hunting are captured within the proposed amendment. We have always said that the goal of this is to target assault-style weapons and not hunting rifles.

I know it's going to take work. I know we have to find ways to bridge the gaps together, but we are committed to doing that work together. We are committed to making sure that we pass a good bill to protect Canadians and get guns off the streets that need to be taken off the streets, and that hunters, farmers and indigenous communities do not find themselves unreasonably impacted by this.

I think we can do it. We have a track record in this committee of getting stuff done. I really think that if we can pass this motion today and get on with the work of ensuring that we get this bill right, Canadians will look to us and accept...I think they will respect the fact that we had healthy debate and we had disagreement, but we got something over the finish line that would protect Canadians from gun crime and protect hunters, farmers and indigenous communities and their ability to go and hunt.

Thank you.

Taleeb Noormohamed

$635,147.00