SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 198

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
  • May/16/23 6:25:19 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, we just heard from House staff that the kitchen is made completely of tinfoil.
16 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:25:28 p.m.
  • Watch
Order. That is not a point of order, and quite honestly, not that funny. I will remind everyone that the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has the floor.
31 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:25:36 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, this time, the Liberals played bait and switch on their own MPs. Con artists bait a victim with something of lesser value, then switch it out for something more costly. These radical socialist parties voted for a handgun freeze. That was the bait. Once the bill reached committee, the Liberals switched it for a hunting rifle ban. Banning hunting rifles was never debated in Parliament. The Liberals knew they had to trick Canadians to get it passed. They even pulled one over on their own MPs. Fortunately, Canadian democracy worked as intended, at least for a while. The public was alerted to this hunting rifle ban, and concerned constituents contacted their members of Parliament. First, the government tried to gaslight Canadians by claiming its amendment to ban hunting rifles was not a ban on hunting rifles. The Liberals accused everyone who did not support them of spreading misinformation. They continued to claim they were not banning hunting rifles, despite providing a list of which hunting rifles they were planning to ban. Eventually, the radical socialists withdrew their amendments. They tried to pull a fast one and got caught, but the government wants Canadians to be dependent on it, so the Liberals tried again. Their last attempt to ban hunting rifles ran aground because of too much public debate. Their new plan is to avoid debate, so now the law is being made behind closed doors. They do not want Canadians to know what they are up to. Instead of banning firearms through Parliament, they plan to appoint a secret committee of anti-firearm activists to ban hunting rifles for them. Of course, the committee has to be secret. Transparency and democracy are like sunlight to vampires. The Prime Minister no longer even bothers to hide his contempt for democracy. It is the misinformation he spreads that demonstrates his contempt for the intelligence of Canadians. The Prime Minister is the prime palterer. First, he states that no one uses AR-15s to hunt. That is a classic example of using truthful facts to deceive. It is true that scary AR-15s are not used to hunt deer. What the prime palterer neglects to mention is that the reason is that it is unethical to hunt large animals with underpowered rifles. These types of firearms are more often used on farms and ranches as pest control and for target shooting. Many bolt-action rifles are more powerful at longer ranges than these so-called assault-style firearms. However, this has never been about power or lethality. This has always been about looks. For these radical socialists, it is the appearance of these black guns that scares them. This is the reason they have struggled to come up with a definition of “assault-style” that does not capture hunting rifles. The barrels of most guns are black, a colour radical socialists recoil at. There is no technical definition they can create that would exclude popular hunting rifles and include firearms that look scary to them. Making judgments on the basis of appearance never ends well. That type of discrimination is rooted in fear and ignorance. These radical socialists prey on people's fears and exploit their ignorance of Canada's current firearms laws, and it is clear from their deliberate misinformation campaign that they think most Canadians are stupid. The Prime Minister harbours contempt for Canadians. From admiring communists to assaulting MPs, it is clear the Prime Minister holds Parliament in contempt as well. None of this is a surprise. What is a surprise is that the Prime Minister would hold Pierre Trudeau's legacy in contempt. As fond as the Prime Minister is of clichés, he clearly does not embrace the fact that guns do not kill, but people do. While he might reject it, his father did not. It was Pierre Trudeau who first introduced Canada's system of gun owner control. That model was later embraced by the Mulroney government. Canada's system of gun owner control has been a tremendous success. Sadly, the Liberals and their media allies have been captured by the radical anti-firearms lobby. They have one goal, and one goal only: They want to abolish private, legal gun ownership. Make no mistake, criminals will still own firearms, and the government will guarantee it. The increasingly authoritarian state will own firearms. Only law-abiding citizens will be prevented from owning firearms. Now, these radical socialists will claim they have no plans to ban all firearms, but they have already shown their hand. As much as they like to prostrate to diversity, they are tone deaf to actual differences. Most of these radical socialists have the same urban, condescending demeanor. How many of them understand the training and scrutiny people go through to obtain a possession and acquisition licence? How many of them ever had to hunt to put food on the table? The carbon tax is already fuelling food inflation, and once the clean fuel regulations take effect in July, we can expect to see another surge in food prices. Not a single one of these radical socialist MPs will have to rely on the food bank. Not a single one of them will wonder where their next meal is coming from. For many Canadians in rural Canada, driving to a food bank is not an option, but the radical socialists do not care. They will impose their urban norms on everyone. They do not care if the closest police station is an hour's drive away. They do not believe Canadians have the right to protect their livestock from wolves and coyotes. The minister for misinformation and emergencies likes to claim Canadians do not even have a right to own wood and metal if it is in the shape of a rifle. The minister for misinformation and public unsafety actually claims their legislation is reducing crime. They can only gaslight so long before people realize that the government is trying to convince them that what they know to be true is not. These radical socialists need to ram this bill through before people realize what is happening to this country. Canadians sense the authoritarian assault on their property rights. They are seeing the Prime Minister's repeated assaults on democracy for what they really are. They know we are less safe today than before the totalitarian party took power. Firearm-related crime had been in decline for 40 years until the government declared war on mandatory sentences for the illegal possession of a firearm. These radical socialists eliminated all mandatory minimums, waived bail for gun criminals and lightened sentences for pedophiles. Canadians are seeing criminals getting away with murder as long as these radical socialists are in charge. While the Prime Minister “took the knee” for Marxism to defund the police, violent crime has gone up and police officers have been targeted for murder. Instead of giving police resources, the Prime Minister marches against them. The radical socialists harass lawful citizens and strip away property rights. At first they came for the firearms they did not like the colour of, but people who did not own a gun said nothing. Then they came for the hunting rifles and handguns, but people who did not own a gun said nothing. When they decide, in the name of their climate crisis emergency, that owning a cottage or a second car is a climate crime, then these people may say something but it will be too late. Once the state decides it can strip away one's property on the pretense of public safety, there is no recourse. Just ask those who supported the freedom truckers and had their bank accounts frozen. More and more Canadians understand the threat posed by planning regulations to strip people of their private property. A growing number are becoming aware of the threat the Prime Minister and his incompetent ministers pose to democracy. These radical socialists want to impose their post-national absence of values on Canadians. They are stripping us of our heritage, our property and our freedom of expression. Only by tearing down history can they build back their reimagined Canada into some socialist utopia. It is time for Canadians to join the Conservatives to make Canada work for Canadians who work, and bring home our values for those who value our homes, their homes. Let us bring it home.
1408 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:34:10 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, talk about conspiracy theories. Over the weekend, the leader of the Conservative Party was talking about passports. Colleagues would not believe how weird that discussion got. The more I listened to him, the more I wondered if this guy is real. Can the leader of the official opposition really be that much of a conspiracist? Then I hear one of his inner circle members of Parliament deliver a speech that kind of blew me away. If one wants to motivate people to ensure that the Conservatives never get into government, one can have them listen to the tweet from the leader of the Conservative Party and this member's speech. Can the member indicate how she can justify this when the Conservative Party of Canada is espousing all sorts of misinformation, almost on a daily basis, not only on this legislation? How does she justify saying that we are spreading misinformation when the degree to which the Conservatives are using this legislation to raise money is fairly well documented? It is not about concern over Canadians' safety.
179 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:35:20 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about raising conspiracy theories. They called it a conspiracy theory when we said they were including hunting rifles on the list of firearms that would be banned. They said it was misinformation and disinformation, but when it came down to it and the definitions crystallized, they did include hunting rifles. They call it a conspiracy theory until it is proven to be fact.
69 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:36:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, the amount of disinformation in this speech was mind-boggling. I can accept that the government is not perfect, but calling it totalitarian is a bit too far. The Conservative Party keeps telling hunters that Bill C‑21 will cover their hunting rifles. This is not so. I think the Conservative Party is the one guilty of disinformation. The Conservatives also claim to be standing up for sport shooters and say that they should not be subject to a handgun freeze. Today, however, in the Notice Paper, the Conservative Party is moving a motion to delete the only clause of the bill that exempts certain persons from the handgun freeze. I wonder where the truth really lies.
121 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:36:57 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, farmers who are defending their livestock and hunters who are trying to obtain food for the season do not think of or refer to their firearms as weapons. Police do. The military does. However, for sport shooters, hunters and farmers, their firearms are simply sports equipment or tools they need to do their job.
56 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:37:34 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear it in her speech specifically, but I know Conservatives have expressed concern about clause 43 and moved to take it out of the bill. Can she affirm her support for removing clause 43 and explain to the House why she thinks that is so important?
51 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:37:52 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I do not have clause 43 in front of me, so I am not going to disagree or agree with something I cannot specifically refer to at the moment.
31 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:38:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that removing clause 43 is one of the Conservative amendments at report stage, so I would encourage her to do her homework on her party's own amendments. If she does want to take a little time to let us know whether she is in favour of or opposed to a Conservative Party amendment, I think we would all appreciate knowing whether she supports her party's amendments or not.
77 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:38:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, again, I have not memorized the numbers and the amendments, so I would have to look it up to make sure I am agreeing or disagreeing with whatever the amendment says.
33 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:38:48 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member in my caucus if she could perhaps expand on how we got to the point where Bill C-21 is now being debated today. It started with the OIC, the initial version of Bill C-21, which provided complete misinformation by the minister and made wild accusations against firearms owners. I would like to hear her talk about the journey it took to get to this point, in May 2023, where we are still debating this bill and it still has very deep flaws in it.
95 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:39:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, the beginning of this bill really started with Polytechnique, and that was when the Liberals, the socialists and a whole bunch of them decided to wage war. It was Bill C-68 at the time. They wanted to start a gun registry, which failed miserably because the fact that someone is registering a firearm did not do anything to prevent crime. Then we fast-forward to the tragedy in Nova Scotia. On the heels of that, and in trying to interfere in the investigation into the tragedy, the Liberals were trying to get the RCMP commissioner to find out what the list of guns was so they could justify their order in council gun ban.
117 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:40:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21. It has never been more clear how disconnected the current Liberal government is from rural Canadians. Firearms are tools for millions of Canadians, especially those who call rural Canada their home. I am a law-abiding firearms owner myself, just like millions of other Canadians across this country. I represent a region in this House of Commons that comprises rural communities and rural Canadians. The largest community I represent is smaller than 10,000 people. I am also a farmer who, just like thousands of other farmers, uses a firearm, not as a weapon but as a tool to protect my farm. When I speak to Bill C-21, I speak from an understanding of what a firearm means to the rural way of life. Rural Canadians share the understanding that the firearm is a tool. It is an understanding shared by first nations, hunters and law-abiding firearms owners all across this nation. Unfortunately, the current Liberal government has few members in rural regions and, therefore, little representation from rural Canada. When I see the government display such a blatant disregard for the rural way of life, I fear it has made a calculated political decision to write off the views of rural Canada for its own political gain. After all, rural Canadians did send the Liberals a strong message at the ballot box in the last election. The government has no regard for the concerns, the priorities or the way of life of rural Canadians. The cost of the neglect displayed by the government toward rural Canadians is a direct reflection of an increasing urban-rural divide, and it is a divide that I fear will only grow larger the longer the Prime Minister remains in power. This is a very important matter, and I draw to the Speaker's attention that quorum is not present in this chamber.
322 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:42:48 p.m.
  • Watch
I appreciate the quorum call, but the order that was passed earlier does not allow for quorum calls after 6:30 p.m. The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.
33 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:42:58 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the special order. I just want the record to show that we are considering Bill C-21 at report stage without the constitutional requirement of quorum. I point out that the special order under which we are operating also provides for third reading to be—
52 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:43:13 p.m.
  • Watch
There is a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
16 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:43:17 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, the rule is that quorum cannot be called. It does not say how many members are in the chamber or in the MPs' lounges. It could be a large number, or it could be a smaller number. It is just that we cannot call quorum.
47 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:43:35 p.m.
  • Watch
It also devolves into the issue of underlining who is in the chamber and who is not in the chamber. It does get into that. There is a point of order by the hon. member for York—Simcoe.
39 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 6:43:47 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order on that point of order. Those numbers are part of the member's speech.
22 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border