What I will say is that the allegations that … have been made are quite serious.

I am appalled by the brazen shooting and pledge Ottawa’s full support.

But ultimately, we need to get to the bottom of this, and we need to ensure that these types of incidents do not occur in the future.

We’ve done a fair bit of work.

The sense of safety and security needs to be restored, and we will continue to be with Montrealers as well as all Canadians in this very difficult moment.

As the investigation unfolds, information will come to light and based on that, of course, we will review and look at specific things that we need to do around ‘incels’ as well as the other aspects of hate that appears to be the motivation.

What is not acceptable is obstructionism, and that’s what I’m frustrated about.

That means clear protections for encrypted communications, that means a clear definition of systemic vulnerability in the bill, that means metadata stored for a shorter period of time, that means ensuring industry is at the table advising…

Delay and stalling tactics is not what’s warranted right now. What is warranted is collaboration and cooperation.

We’ve heard the voices of those who raised concerns, and I’ve spoken with several of them today, and I continue to speak to them throughout this process. I told them directly that we will amend this bill to address their concerns.

When Parliament makes law, there’s time for debate and there’s time for choosing.

The government can't cherry pick which portions of the legislation to implement.

It’s time to choose. It’s a time to choose between victims of crime who are demanding that we, as parliamentarians, act to protect them.

You can call it any other names, but delay and stalling tactics are not what’s warranted right now. What is warranted is collaboration and cooperation.

While collection and compensation for individuals are underway, I would encourage firearm owners to book their appointments as soon as they get their notification.

the government is more open now to shortening the maximum time frame of one year.

We believe in our legal system, we believe in the rule of law, and what we don’t want to do is pre-empt that decision.

The one matter that we didn’t anticipate at that time was the Supreme Court challenge.

While you know we would have preferred to have the amnesty in place for October … we have to respect the Supreme Court and their ability as the final arbiter of Canadian law to weigh in, and that’s what we’re doing today.

This is both the respectful thing to do to those who have already enrolled, and I believe that if individuals do want to buy something else, they’re able to do so, but with the caveat that the Supreme Court will decide on the overall…

In both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal we were quite successful in defending our position.

When there is a Supreme Court hearing on a matter that is quite relevant to the program, I think it’s incumbent upon lawmakers to ensure that we respect that process.

We’re quite confident of our legal position on this, but at the same time we want to respect the process.

“We talked to law enforcement, we talked about the practicalities of shortening it — it does impede their ability to do an effective investigation, so one year is something that I believe we will hold steady on.”