44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 0.1.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 1.1.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be speaking to Bill C-21 yet again. Last week, the Liberals moved a time allocation motion in the House to limit our ability to debate this at committee. After that passed, and after they forced a closure motion on my ability to speak in the House on that time allocation motion, then time allocation came to a vote. They did not really like what I had to say and wanted to shut me up, which is why they moved the closure motion. This meant that, in committee, every party, but our party in particular, only had five minutes to discuss each amendment and clause. There were many amendments and clauses, and their impacts were very far-reaching.
The Liberals restricted us significantly on time in committee; Conservatives, having only that limited time, were sure to use every last moment of it. We were at committee until, I think, almost one in the morning on Thursday, doing our due diligence on this bill. The bill should have taken weeks to thoroughly examine and question the officials at length on. Our debate was severely limited in many important ways.
Again, there are 2.3 million lawful firearms owners in this country whom many of these measures in Bill C-21 will impact. Therefore, I know the firearms community and their families were deeply concerned about that debate, as well as the fact that the NDP and the Liberals, working together, severely limited it.
However, that was last week, and here we are this week. This is likely our very last opportunity to debate this in the House, and today is the report stage amendment debate. I moved a number of amendments in a last-ditch effort to really fight for the people who are wrongfully impacted by Bill C-21. These are the lawful and good Canadian people who are the target of the Liberal government. Meanwhile, criminals get away free with bills like Bill C-5 and the government's reckless and dangerous catch-and-release bail policies, which were brought forward in 2019.
That is all going on; meanwhile, the firearms community, particularly hunters and Olympic sport shooters, will be deeply impacted by what is happening with Bill C-21. We have made that very clear; they also made it clear when they had the opportunity to come to committee and put words on the record.
Today, with my limited time, I want to address a few of the issues the minister has brought forward in recent days to communicate on his bill, Bill C-21. There are a number of falsehoods, or at least things I believe he is not telling the whole truth on.
The first thing I would like to talk about is that the minister mentioned recently, and it seems to be his go-to talking point, that 87% of Canadians support him in what he is doing. We found out at committee from the parliamentary secretary that this statistic is from one poll. For Canadians who do not follow polls, it is mostly an inside baseball political thing. An average poll has about 400 to 1,500 people. Okay, polls do tell us a lot; however, it is one poll.
Interestingly, a few years ago, the Liberal government spent $200,000 on a public consultation on its gun control ideology. This consultation was on what it is trying to do with Bill C-21 and its so-called buyback program, as well as the secret firearms advisory committee coming forward, which will ban hundreds of hunting rifles in the coming months. A couple of years ago it spent $200,000 of taxpayer dollars and consulted about 133,000 people.
There were 133,000 people consulted. Let us say that the poll, which the minister is arguing is the reason he is claiming the support of Canadians to do all this damage on the firearms and hunting community, likely included 1,000 people. There were 133,000 people who responded to this consultation, and 81% responded “no” on the question of whether more should be done to limit access to handguns, while 77% responded “no” on the question of whether more should be done to limit assault weapons.
Of course, “assault weapons” is a term made up by the Liberal government. It is not a real term. The Liberals are trying to make it one. When they say “assault weapons”, we know they really mean things like hunting rifles and sport shooting rifles. We heard this first-hand from firearms advocates from the hunting, indigenous and sport shooting communities, notably Olympians.
Regardless of Liberals' using their tricky language, 77% of 133,000 people still said they did not want anything more done to limit assault weapons. Moreover, 78% said to focus on the illicit market. This is brilliant, because that is what police and anti-violence groups are saying. We know criminals are being caught and released because of this reckless bail system they brought in a few years ago.
Canadians overwhelmingly agreed that we should go after the illicit market. I will say this again: This was based on consultation with 133,000 people. That is what all the data and the evidence says would have the biggest impact when we are talking about reducing gun violence, which I think every single party and every single person in the House of Commons supports. It is just the way that they are doing it that is so contentious, so divisive.
It is not just one thing. The minister also mentioned that he is focusing on the border. Oh, the border—
950 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-21, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 45 with the following:
“must deliver to a peace officer any firearm that they possess within 24 hours or”
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-21, in Clause 37, be amended
(a) by replacing line 4 on page 46 with the following:
“or a chief firearms officer”
(b) by replacing line 19 on page 46 with the following:
“cer the firearm to which”
(c) by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 46 with the following:
“ferred to in subsection (4), deliver to a peace officer any firearm that they pos-”
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That Bill C-21, in Clause 45, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 51 the following:
“(1.11) The portion of paragraph 117(k) of the Act after subparagraph (ii) is replaced by the following:
of firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, cartridge magazines and components and parts designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or assembly into firearms;”
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 10:20:12 a.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have a phone near the microphone? The interpreters are asking us to check.
The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with the CBSA, he talks about all these investments, hundreds of millions of dollars of investments he says he has made, because gun smuggling is the major contributing factor to gun violence. In this one regard, I agree. We have heard from the Toronto police that eight to nine out of every 10 handguns used in crimes are from the U.S. We know that smuggling is also a huge problem in Montreal and Winnipeg. I have seen them myself from Winnipeg police. If we are going to tackle this problem, of course, we need to focus on the border. The problem is this: Where is all the money really going? Is it having a real impact?
The minister says it is, but if we look at the employment numbers, when the Liberals first came to power in 2015, there were 8,375 frontline officers, or just under 8,400. These are hard-working investigators and all the people who are the last front line at our border to stop drug smuggling, gun smuggling, human trafficking and all other illicit behaviour. Eight years later, with all this spending that he has announced, there are only 25 more frontline workers.
If the money is not going to the frontline workers who supposed to be, and are working on, stopping gun smuggling and drugs and all the other terrible things coming across the border, where is that money going? It is going to middle management. Again, we absolutely respect our public service, but when it comes to stopping gun violence and gun smuggling, we need those frontline officers. However, he has taken the number of middle managers from 2,000 in 2015 to 4,000 in 2023. Those are the numbers that we have. He has doubled the number of middle managers and done nothing for the frontline officers who are actually doing the hard work. Therefore, I am not going to give him a lot of credit when he wants to claim victory on the work he is doing at the border. I am not seeing it reflected in the hard-working and brave frontline officers we need to stop this problem.
Lastly, I will talk about police. The minister mentions police. I have given him credit; I think it is important to be fair. It is important that he has made some investments in police. When I talk to police, what do they tell me? I have talked to police in every corner of the country. Actually, I would love to go to the north. It is the last place I need to go to talk to police.
What they tell me is that funding is great, but what really impacts their day-to-day work is the fact that they are rearresting the same dangerous, violent repeat offenders every single weekend. Sometimes, they know these individuals on a first-name basis, because they arrest them so many times. Sometimes, they rearrest them in the same day. They are getting out and back on the streets, terrorizing innocent Canadians and inflicting violent crime on them.
We see this in Toronto. Last year, 40 individuals were responsible for 6,000 violent crime incidents in this country. Just to be specific, 40 individuals had 6,000 interactions with police that included violent crime in one year. We can imagine how much more good the police would be able to do if we could just tackle those 40 people. How many more drug rings, gun smugglers, human traffickers and all those complex crime rings could they take down if they were not caught up with 40 people causing 6,000 incidents, causing mayhem for the people of Vancouver? That is the same across every city that I have heard about.
Police are burnt out, exhausted and suffering from serious PTSD, because they are overworked. No amount of money is going to fix that. What will fix that is a government that comes in and focuses on getting tough on crime; jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders; fixing the parole system, so that we are not letting people who are very dangerous out into our parole system and overburdening our parole officers; and fixing conditional sentencing, where people are now under house arrest after raping women. The conditional sentencing issue is because they brought in Bill C-5, which impacted people who commit sexual assaults; they can now serve their sentences from the comfort of home. Those kinds of things would sure help police fight violent crime and really make a difference in fighting gun violence.
That is what they want to see. That is what Toronto police and letters to government are universally saying. Premiers from every political stripe agree and have written multiple times to the Prime Minister, demanding bail reform. Those are the things that would really have an impact on reducing gun violence, not spending what estimates say is $6 billion on their so-called buyback regime, which is really a confiscation regime. That is where the resources they want to spend are going to go. Those are their priorities.
A Conservative government led by the member for Carleton would actually deliver results to Canadians, clean up our streets and reduce gun violence. That is our commitment to the Canadian people.
884 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to address the member opposite, who made some comments on this.
First, she asked about the definition of “assault weapons”. I would suggest that she speak to anyone who has lost a loved one to an attack by someone using an assault weapon to understand what those are. More than that, I realize that there has been a lot of communication with the gun lobby. In particular, the member has spoken to them. She mentioned in her comments that she filibustered committee, as well as that gun ownership is a right. Lastly, the member opposite mentioned the inability to debate this. There were two late night sittings, when there was an opportunity to debate these motions; the member opposite did not participate in either of them.
Is there a reason, other than fundraising through the gun lobby, that the member is raising these issues?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, perhaps the member has not been paying a lot of attention, but I believe the Minister of Public Safety has met with groups that are advocates for firearms ownership as well. I would be surprised if he did not.
Hon. Marco Mendicino: I did.
Ms. Raquel Dancho: Madam Speaker, he just mentioned that he did, and I am glad that he has. Perhaps he should talk to the member who just asked the question. Is she suggesting that we do not talk to those who fight for our hunters and sport shooters? I am really unclear in that regard.
I will say that the individuals with whom the minister and the government are consulting are part of a group of doctors for gun control; this group wants to ban all civilian ownership of firearms. This includes banning ownership by indigenous Canadians, hunters and Olympic sport shooters. A main member of that group has met with the Liberals over 20 times; that member has been a key stakeholder in advising them what to do when it comes to firearms and has said publicly, on the record and multiple times on Twitter that all civilian ownership of firearms should be illegal and that it should all be banned. That is their true intention.
Perhaps the member does not represent any indigenous Canadians, hunters or sport shooters, but I would urge her to ask them what they think of that.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised to see the amendments that my colleague is tabling today at report stage. Perhaps my colleagues did not follow what happened in committee last week. We spent several hours together debating Bill C-21, and there was a good consensus.
Yes, the Conservatives used every five-minute period they had to rise to speak. They took turns so that new people were coming in and asking the same questions as their colleagues did before. In the end, they voted in favour of all the amendments for ghost guns. They also voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois's amendments to require a valid licence to purchase cartridge magazines. There was firm consensus on the yellow-flag provisions, in particular.
Today, the Conservative Party is saying that there is nothing good about this bill and that it wants to do away with the amendments. I do not really understand the Conservative Party's rhetoric.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate working with the member. I think that I had a clear record of working very well on the public safety committee until November, when the Liberal government snuck through the largest hunting rifle ban in Canadian history at the eleventh hour. The government blew up committee with that. The minister then made us wait six weeks before we could resume.
It was the Liberals' fault that months went by and then weeks went by before we resumed. When we finally did, they had the support of the Bloc, which has largely abandoned its rural hunting community, unfortunately. The Bloc worked in lockstep with the Liberals and the NDP to call time allocation.
When we only have five minutes to talk about complex things, that can be very concerning. There were a number of times when we could have talked about issues at length, but we were not allowed to do so. The member is absolutely right. We used every five minutes that we could, that they allowed us to have.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is hard to know where to start with the disinformation. I am perplexed by the issue of report stage amendments. The Conservatives have filed amendments that do the contrary to what their position was at committee. I can understand why the member could not defend the report stage amendments. They are kind of bizarre and contradictory.
On the issue of the filibuster, we have had law enforcement right across the country say, effectively, that we needed to put in place these provisions that combat ghost guns, which are used only by criminals. We have seen this on the lower mainland. There is a proliferation of ghost guns; in some cases, anecdotally, a 100% increase in ghost guns has been seen per month.
Why did the Conservatives, for weeks, block provisions around ghost guns that are desperately needed by law enforcement?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is spreading purposeful misinformation or disinformation. I know, for a fact, that I have done more consultation with police than that member has, particularly on ghost guns across the country. I have been on that committee for a year and a half, and we have talked extensively about ghost guns.
What surprises me is that the Liberal government did not include ghost guns in the original form of its bill. If ghost guns were so important to the government, why did it not do that?
Why did it make us wait for months to talk about it? Why did the minister make us wait for six weeks? It is not on us to make up for all the time that he wasted.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today on legislation that I know will help save lives in our country.
I am very pleased to see the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. We missed her at committee the last couple of days.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 10:30:56 a.m.
- Watch
There are two points of order, and one is my fault. The hon. member is a bit too early for his speech, which is my mistake.
I should have recognized the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia first.
An hon. member: No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Agreed.
I want to remind the hon. member that we do not refer to the absence or the presence of members both in the chamber and at committee. I believe that is the hon. member's point of order.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, since the subject is about me. I would like to know if the member would like to see a doctor's note. Is he my father now? Do I need his permission not to go to committee—
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 10:31:32 a.m.
- Watch
We do not refer to the presence or absence of members. The hon. member should apologize to the hon. member for making reference to that.
The hon. member for Vancouver Granville.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize to the member opposite unequivocally.
9 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as has now become very clear, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We have spent months on the legislation.
I thank my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for their work and their co-operation. We worked together to introduce a better bill for Canada and for Canadians.
It is also important that we remember something the CCFR probably does not want us to know but Canadians should. In committee, the Conservatives voted time and time again to support our amendments on this bill. Many of those good people know that legislation gets done in the committee room and not on social media. It is important to realize that.
I want to thank those members who were there to debate and to ensure that we improved the legislation. I want to particularly thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, who put forward an amendment that we all supported. That is how we should get things done in the House.
The process has been long and challenging, but we have ended up in a place where we have legislation that would keep our communities and our country safer, but would also preserve the way of life of many who hunt.
We have heard from professionals, victims of crime and their families, and also indigenous communities and hunters. Our government promised Canadians that we would provide a comprehensive and effective strategy to protect communities from gun violence, and we are making good on that promise.
Developing good laws is not just about theory. It is about much more than sitting in a black box and making things up. It is about learning and understanding.
When we started debating the bill, I was challenged by members opposite to take my PAL course so I would understand how firearms worked, because that was the claim that some made but, most important, to understand gun owners, those who want be gun owners, hunters and gun enthusiasts.
It was an important process for me to take that time to talk to them, both urban and rural, to build my understanding of what they thought and what mattered to them. I did this because at committee we had folks who would come and claim that they spoke for gun owners across the country. It very quickly became apparent that they did not.
First, the vast majority of gun owners support common-sense gun laws and they want safer communities for all of us. They are not fiercely partisan people with an axe to grind with our government or other governments. They are not interested in fiery rhetoric or in gaslighting people with silly tweets and rage-forming videos of out-of-context clips from the House of Commons.
They are good people who love our country and know that sometimes we must make difficult decisions to keep the country safer. They abhor ad hominem attacks on their fellow Canadians, and they are disgusted by the type of vitriol spread by organizations like the CCFR.
They find it distasteful when they see politicians choosing to use this “taking their guns away” narrative for personal gain or to fundraise by misleading them and taking them for fools. They know better than to be told by members opposite that gun ownership is a right in Canada, that we have some equivalent to a U.S. amendment right. They know that is simply not true. They have my utmost respect, and I want them to know that we have heard them.
Second, I learned, and I heard from them, that they take seriously the responsibility of gun ownership, particularly when it comes to getting guns intended to kill as many people as possible off our streets. They know, just as we do, that gun crime is not just an urban issue; it affects Canadians of all walks of life. They know that when it comes to suicide, guns in the home is a major issue we need to address.
The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens and, contrary to what they might hear, this law would not affect them. The four criteria that make something a prohibited firearm are: first, a firearm that is not a handgun; second, discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner; three, designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more; four, and the one thing that members opposite conveniently forget to include, that it is designed and manufactured on or after the date on which this paragraph comes into force.
We keep forgetting that. It is really important that Canadians hear the truth. Let us think about that in the context of what we hear from the opposition. If a gun does not meet those criteria, it is not considered to be prohibited. I am not sure why those members choose to mislead Canadians.
Our government understands that for some communities the ability to hunt means being able to feed their family. It is part of the way of life for many Canadians, particularly in the north, where it is a matter of survival. The bill would protect their ability to do that.
We have also ensured that the bill respects the right of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities from coast to coast to coast. It includes a specific amendment that states clearly that nothing in this definition would infringe on the rights of indigenous peoples under their section 35 rights of the Constitution. By including this non-derogation clause for indigenous people, we are reaffirming their section 35 rights and we are meeting our UNDRIP obligations.
We also have to ensure that we do what is required to keep our communities safer. For me, the element of the bill that I am most keen to see us get right is to get ghost guns off our streets.
Law enforcement agencies across the country want us to act quickly. They have seen an increase in the use of ghost guns, and today we have an opportunity to respond to their request and ensure we do what we can to keep pace with criminals and hold them accountable. We have a chance to address unlawfully manufactured, unsterilized, untraceable firearms and their parts.
For those who do not know, ghost guns can be 3-D printed or modified using readily available kits. Blueprints for these guns are available online. People can download them and literally print them at home. With modern 3-D printers, they can produce a durable firearm capable of shooting hundreds of rounds without a failure. Combined with parts they can order online, they have a viable gun ready for use in crimes in no time.
I had the privilege of getting to know and hear from Michael Rowe, an inspector with the VPD. He has been a vocal advocate for dealing with ghost guns. He is among the experts in the world on this topic. He told our committee:
...one of my teams recently completed an investigation in which we executed search warrants on a residential home. Inside this home, we located a sophisticated firearms manufacturing operation capable of producing 3-D printed firearms. They had firearm suppressors and they were completing airsoft conversions—converting airsoft pistols into fully functioning firearms..
He also said:
...one of the trends we're seeing out here in Vancouver right now is the use of privately made firearms or “ghost guns”. During the gang conflict, we're seeing more ghost guns, specifically in the hands of people who are involved in active murder conspiracies or people who are believed to be working as hired contract killers
Let me be clear that the only people using ghost guns are criminals. There is no legitimate reason to have one.
When we previously withdrew amendments to Bill C-21, an important definition was removed, and I am so pleased that the definition is now back and supported by so many in the House. This definition will define firearms parts in the Criminal Code. Ensuring that those buying barrels, slides and trigger assemblies online are subject to the same rules as those buying guns will make it harder for criminals to hide. It will make it harder for criminals to make their guns at home.
The amendments that we have introduced to address ghost guns are yet another reason why Bill C-21 is so important and why we must get this passed. I believe strongly that all members here can agree that this growing issue needs to be addressed urgently. These ghost gun amendments received wide support from all members of our committee, and it is important to recognize that. It is a need that our law enforcement agencies have addressed and we must take it on head-on. Police services across the country have sounded the alarm on this and we have responded.
We have also introduced other provisions in the bill that are important and are aimed at fighting gun smuggling and trafficking. We are going to change the laws that will increase maximum criminal penalties and provide more tools for law enforcement agencies to investigate firearms. We have already made substantial investments and continue to invest in strengthening the RCMP's and CBSA's capacity to intercept guns coming across our borders. We know that it is working, because they intercepted nearly double the number of firearms coming in across the border than they did last year.
A lot of work is being done, but it is also important for us to remember all the people who have asked us for action.
Today, as I stand here, I am thinking of the important rights that we must preserve for indigenous communities. The ways of life in the north must be preserved. However, I also think of the victims of the Quebec City mosque massacre, of the Danforth families, of the Polytechnique families, of the women who go home and are threatened by intimate-partner violence, of those who turned to their firearms for suicide, and many more. So many of those are victims of gun violence perpetrated by legal guns. To them, we owe a responsibility, and for people like Ken Price who has been an advocate for those parents who will never see their child grow up and for the 17 kids at the mosque in Quebec City who lost their dads.
Every day that I walked into the room to debate this bill, in the back of my mind there was a thought for those and all that we lost as Canadians every time one of these incidents happened: the lost potential, lives cut short, the person who might have been the scientist who cured cancer, the Olympic skier, the friend we could count on when things got tough, the young woman who might have been prime minister, the families that will never be the same and the communities that have been torn apart forever. For them, we must do our part. It is not just about thoughts and prayers; it is actually about stepping up and taking action. If we do not, we will only have ourselves to blame the next time something terrible happened.
In every faith tradition, we speak of the preservation of life. In my tradition, the Quran says, “whoever chooses to save a life is as though he had saved all mankind.” I hope that in the House we will count ourselves among those who make that choice.
1944 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 10:32:16 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member has the floor for his speech.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
