44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
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
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech, and I heard much of the same rhetoric as I did during my participation at the public safety committee, although I do not think the member and I overlapped in our time at committee.
However, I do find it somewhat discouraging that, whenever the Liberals seem to be losing on any issue, and it is not limited to this, they simply say that the Conservatives are being partisan. They say things like we are bringing American-style politics into it, when the reality is that we heard from firearms owners across the country, many common-sense Canadians, who are feeling their voices silenced because of the Liberals' refusal to engage with that ownership community and so many others across the country who have valid concerns about Bill C-21 and the government's approach to confiscating, in many cases, the legally owned firearms of Canadians.
How can that member reconcile what he just said with the fact that so many Canadians are being silenced by his actions?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do recall overlapping with him, and we had excellent exchanges at committee.
I think it is important for Canadians to get their information where the information actually resides, and not from misinformation. The facts are clear. The legislation is clear, and the amendments are clear. I would invite any Canadian who is concerned about whether they are affected to read the law and what is contained within it. I think they will be satisfied that the vast majority of gun owners in this country would not be affected.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I applaud the government for withdrawing its amendments on assault weapons in February and for tabling a new and, I think, improved version in May. However, not everyone is happy with this new version because it only applies prospectively. It affects only new weapons that will be coming on the market in future.
In May 2020, the government's order in council came under criticism because it was considered incomplete. People would have preferred an order in council banning guns that met the Criminal Code definition of a prohibited weapon. It was missing the definition. Now, the definition is there, but the government has decided to keep 480 models of firearms on the market even though most of them were developed for military purposes.
At this point, with the passage of Bill C‑21, the right thing for the minister to do would be to ban these firearms by order in council, taking care not to ban those that are reasonably used for hunting. Would my colleague agree with me that this is what the minister should do at this point?
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and her hard work on this file in committee.
I cannot speak for the minister, but it is important for us to work together to improve our laws when we have the opportunity to do it, so we can protect Canadians' lives. The reality of a minority Parliament is that we have to collaborate with the other parties. I am very proud of the work we have done. I think that this bill is now an excellent bill for all of us, for the country. However, it is always possible to make improvements and to work together to do just that.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague, as I do with all members at committee, but there have been concerns about the bill over the year that it has been sitting in the House. We have had an increasingly urgent concern about ghost guns, which criminals are using across the country. Anecdotally, as members are well aware, in some parts of the country, over this period, there has been an increase of 10 times in the use of untraceable ghost guns by criminals, and in other parts of the country, it is up to 40 times. This is an epidemic.
The Liberals tabled amendments without consultation back in November, to the delay of the bill. Then, we had the Conservatives filibustering over the course of the last month, basically blocking clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and I think I would say that two wrongs do not make a right. Could the member explain why Conservatives blocked putting into place provisions that are so urgent for law enforcement?
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his hard work on this and his partnership in committee.
However, it is not for me to determine why Conservatives would choose to block such an important piece of legislation. The only thing I can say is that it has been a very useful fundraising tool, and I think perhaps that may be their motivation, but I cannot speak to anything beyond that. I am perplexed as to why anyone would want to block measures that law enforcement have been asking for, that are truly creating a—
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 10:47:32 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 10:47:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to talk a bit about how—
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 10:47:50 a.m.
- Watch
Order. A colleague just started her speech. Could hon. members honour that it is her time to speak?
The hon. member has the floor.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
