44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, today's Conservative Party line is that there is nothing good in Bill C‑21. They say it will not make our fellow citizens safer. If the Conservatives are to be believed, the bill has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
However, I do not know if my colleagues are aware of this, but certain things happened in committee during the clause-by-clause study. The Conservative Party voted in favour of all the government's amendments on ghost guns. It voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois's amendments on cartridge magazines. The Conservative Party itself amended the bill to include the definition of domestic violence. It helped make the bill better.
That is why I have such a hard time understanding why the Conservatives are now saying that there is nothing good in the bill. I would like to better understand my colleagues' position.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the problem with the bill is that it is fundamentally flawed. With all due respect to my colleague, I do not think anybody really appreciates the impact this is having on rural Canada and the way of life or the way we live in rural Canada. I cannot imagine trying to defend my livestock. When I farmed, I had cattle, and there are coyotes that come around. When the mother cow is having her calf, there are packs of wolves and coyotes that will come and kill everything. A farmer needs a gun to fix that. The problem is that this bill is attacking that very farmer.
An hon. member: That is false.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is the problem. It is not false. I wish the member would understand the impact this has.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, earlier in his speech, the member talked about sport shooting. I know there are provisions about sport shooting in the bill with respect to the handgun freeze. I know conservatives have proposed to delete clause 43, which talks a bit about that sport shooting issue. I wonder if he can confirm his support for that Conservative amendment and speak a little to the issue of sport shooting.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just noticed that there is a list of rural NDP ridings here, and this member is not on that list. He obviously has an urban riding. I just wonder how much he consulted with his colleagues and all the rural ridings the NDP members actually represent and how much they listened to them. By the sounds of it and by the support of the bill, I would think he did not listen to them at all.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-21. As members may have noticed, I have not spoken to this bill or any bill related to guns, and there is a specific reason. I find it exceptionally difficult to speak about this issue given the work I have done in the past. However, I feel a need to weigh in today given the enormous amount of misinformation that is coming forth.
At the outset, I want to acknowledge that the bill, as amended, at this stage does not impact hunters or indigenous people. Their section 35 charter rights are protected under the non-derogation clause. I want to centre this conversation on why this piece of legislation is deeply important to me, my riding and my community.
About 20 years ago in 1997, on December 27, a young man, a 19-year-old University of Waterloo student, was shot at a coffee shop in Scarborough. His name was Kabilan Balachandran. I have spoken about him before. At that time, he sparked a movement to counter the violence and gun violence we had seen in our community. He would have been 44 years old this year. His was a life of boundless opportunities and potential achievements that was cut short because of gun violence.
My involvement in community work really started off just after that. An organization called the Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre was started because of Kabilan in 1999, and for the next four years or so, I was able to run the organization as its coordinator on a voluntary basis. I can tell members that we put hundreds of hours a month into supporting young people who were impacted by violence in a community that was struggling with violence.
A couple of years later, in 1999 I believe, two young men were shot point-blank at 720 Kennedy Road. They were students at SATEC. I was able to meet with the families, and in fact I am still in touch with them. The pain I saw among their friends, classmates and those who were impacted, particularly their mothers, is something I can never forget. One of the mothers essentially stood in front of a window waiting for her son to come back. Of course, we know that he never came home.
We have seen other attacks and gun-related incidents that have impacted many young people, and I have been profoundly impacted by this. In fact, in many ways, my view on guns is shaped by this history.
There is a neighbourhood in my riding called Danzig, and it is impoverished in many ways but is surrounded by an incredible community. Just before I ran for office, when I ran for the nomination, it was hosting a barbecue on July 16, 2012. Again there was an incident that involved the deaths of two young men, with 24 people injured. In many ways, I do not have to look at mass casualties or mass gun violence outside of my riding because it happened right there in the middle of the summer, impacting so many young people and families. It shook the community to the core. In fact, we marked the 10th anniversary of their passing just last year, and I can tell members that the pain really has not gone away.
Then, after I was elected in 2017, on July 23, Demal Graham, a resident in my riding, was shot in front of his daughter. We had a chance to visit the family and meet with his mother Shauna, his daughter, his other children and his siblings, and again the hurt continued.
The pain may be different, and it may be 10 years later. It may be people of different backgrounds, faiths and upbringing, and they may be from rural communities. However, ultimately, the pain inflicted on the families that are impacted is just unbelievable.
Louis March is from the Zero Gun Violence Movement, and we have spent quite a bit of time together. In fact, when the Minister of Justice came to my riding in 2019, we had a round table and he was able to give us his first-hand experience with many of the mothers of the young men who were killed by gun violence.
I think we have been arguing a fair bit here, and I do not for a second pretend to know what my friend opposite just spoke about regarding living in rural Canada. I am not going to pretend to know that. I also want him to know that he may not know about living in an inner city in a place like the city of Toronto or any other major centre, and I do not want to presuppose that. However, our conversation needs to be elevated. It cannot just be about saying, no, we are not going to touch or restrict guns of any form. I think that conversation really fails Canadians.
What the Minister of Public Safety has brought forward is, I believe, very balanced legislation that would protect hunters. I have never hunted, and I do not think I ever will, but that is not the point. The point is that there are many Canadians who do and they do it lawfully, and this is not about taking away their ability to hunt. This is not, as I said earlier, about the ability of indigenous people to exercise their section 35 rights.
Ultimately, this is about bringing forward legislation. It may not be perfect and may not fully address all the issues of gun violence. That alone is not enough. Bill C-21 alone is not enough. We know more needs to be done, and that is why the Minister of Public Safety has brought forward funding to support communities and why we brought forward Bill C-48 today to address serious violent offenders.
Ultimately, I think we would do Canadians an injustice if we do not move this bill along. I think there has been sufficient debate. Oftentimes the debate is elevated, and while I do not want to go into the process, obviously this could have been done better. However, I can assure members that this is something that my community needs. Scarborough needs this, the city of Toronto needs this, major cities need this and I know that Canada needs this.
I look forward to questions and comments from my colleagues, and I am thankful for the opportunity to share some of my experiences with gun violence.
1083 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member sharing some tragic stories that he personally experienced or of people he knew. I have a question, though. Could he point out anything in Bill C-21 that would have actually helped to prevent the specific tragedies he experienced?
Second, I would like his feedback on the red flag portions of Bill C-21, because we heard at committee, during the debate, review and study of Bill C-21, from women's groups, and pretty unanimously from all the stakeholders, that the proposed red flag laws that are now in Bill C-21 are costly, ineffective and redundant. In particular, Heidi Rathjen from PolySeSouvient said that:
First, there is not one women's group that asked for this measure.
Second, it's not relevant in the Canadian context, because...victims of abuse can call the police. It's up to the police to come and investigate, and they have all the legislative tools necessary to remove the weapons....
...[the red flag law] is dangerous in the sense that it could...allow police to offload their responsibility onto victims.
I would just like the member's comments—
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 7:13:06 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary the opportunity to answer.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, all I can say is that red flag rules are something we heard about extensively from many stakeholders we spoke to. They are important for addressing the issues of gender-based violence as well as intimate partner violence. I disagree with the member that they will not have any impact. They will have an impact. We have seen it in other jurisdictions, and I believe they are an important part of this bill that we need to maintain.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that, despite Bill C‑21, more needs to be done about gun control in Canada. I agree with him.
When the government withdrew its amendments and came up with a new definition, I think everyone was relieved, except for a few groups that are calling for better gun control. The government took the list of 482 firearms that it wanted to include in the Criminal Code, removed them and proposed a prospective definition, meaning that it applies only to weapons that will be on the market in the future.
In so doing, hunting rifles will be left untouched, which is a good thing. However, hundreds of military-style assault weapons are also being left in circulation. I find it hard to understand how the government can hope to exercise better gun control by leaving a rather incredible number of military-style firearms in circulation.
What does the member think the minister should do? Should he enact an order in council to ban these weapons?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I indicated that Bill C-21 is an important bill, and what I can offer is that there are other things the government is doing. For example, it is supporting communities. When we look at any of these incidents or scenarios, one of the major issues that existed is that the communities needed support. Young people needed support. Young people needed off-ramps, sometimes, from violence and from getting involved in the criminal justice system. Those are the types of supports our government is undertaking.
I know the Minister of Public Safety did make an announcement of $390 million just last week, and we will continue to invest in our communities.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talked about some of the lives that have been lost in his riding. We have seen gun violence happening in many countries. What does the hon. parliamentary secretary think it means to the families to see legislation moving forward that actually takes action to address gun violence, as opposed to just offering prayers and nice words? We see a government actually taking action for families that have lost people in their lives due to gun-related violence.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is very simple. Bill C-21 is not going to bring back any of these children or young people who passed away. It is not going to heal the families. However, it will give solace to those families, those survivors and those who have been impacted by gun violence.
Our government takes it seriously. Collectively we as parliamentarians take gun violence seriously, and we are taking steps to address it—
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 7:17:18 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is with great sensitivity that I will be speaking this evening about Bill C‑21.
I will reiterate that we will be voting in favour of the bill. Thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, and especially thanks to the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who did exceptional work on this file, the bill, which was criticized by hunters, gun control groups and airsoft players, was improved and is now satisfactory for most of these groups.
Obviously, we recognize that the bill is not perfect. I will talk about that in my speech. The government refused some very reasonable proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois, but it did accept many others.
In particular, Bill C‑21 freezes the sale of legal handguns, but we will have to wait several years for these guns to disappear. However, there are also some illegal firearms that will continue to circulate. I will talk about that as I present some figures. I will first address the issue from the perspective of victims' groups. I will also mention the contradictions of the different parties and the Bloc Québécois's exceptional efforts.
First, the federal government estimates that there are more than one million legal handguns in Canada and that more than 55,000 are acquired legally every year. As I said, the Bloc Québécois is proposing to add handguns to the buyback program in order to allow owners to sell them to the government if they so wish. In short, it would be an optional buyback program to reduce the number of guns people own more quickly.
Bill C‑21 should also help in the fight against the proliferation of ghost weapons in Montreal, but the government still needs to do a lot more to control the borders.
It is interesting to note that, according to Montreal's police force, the SPVM, 95% of the handguns used to commit violent crimes are purchased on the black market. However, this should not relieve us of our responsibility when it comes to Bill C‑21. There are other Bloc Québécois bills that aim to address this problem, including Bill C‑279, but we will come back to that later. Legal weapons are still used, as was the case in the Quebec City mosque shooting. They continue to be used, and it is precisely to avoid such mass shootings that the Bloc Québécois supports survivor groups in their demands to ban these guns altogether.
Second, I would like to digress for a moment to say that the government, which claims to be feminist, is adding maximum sentences for certain weapons offences but has removed minimum sentences with Bill C‑5. That sends mixed signals to victims. The Bloc Québécois wanted to make an amendment to a Conservative amendment to reinstate minimum sentences in order to add judicial discretion to override them. However, because of the super closure motion, that was no longer possible.
The Liberal Party and NDP also voted to keep clauses that allow victims of domestic violence to file a complaint with a judge to have guns taken away from the spouse. This is known as the red flag provision. However, women's rights groups testified that this measure could allow police to offload their responsibility and place the burden of proof on women. Women's rights groups wanted this red flag provision withdrawn because they were concerned that it would allow police to offload their responsibility and put the burden of proof on the victims. The Bloc Québécois listened to these groups and voted against the clause, while the NDP and the Liberal Party voted in favour.
Third, I would like to remind the House that, during the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois was already proposing that a definition of what constitutes a prohibited assault weapon be added to the legislation before banning all of those weapons. In the end, the government tabled, without any explanation, 400 pages of amendments listing thousands of models of firearms, which caused a lot of anger and confusion among hunters. It is important to note that the Bloc Québécois is the one that convinced the government to scrap that useless list.
The government also added a relatively complicated definition that included words like “hunting rifle”. Pro-gun groups jumped on that and used it to convince people that the amendment would ban hunting rifles.
The result is that the pro-gun groups were easily able to strike fear into the hearts of hunters, who looked at the list and saw their own firearms there. However, the list included both legal and prohibited firearms, depending on calibre. That created all sorts of confusion.
Worse yet, the main hunting associations were never consulted by the government. Again, the Bloc Québécois proposed reopening the study to be able to hear from expert witnesses on assault weapons and experts on hunting rifles. The Bloc Québécois was against the list in the Criminal Code, believing it to be an unnecessary burden, since the Criminal Code does not reflect in real time the models of firearms and their classification, because it would need to be amended. There are 482 more models of firearms that need to be prohibited thanks to this list, but the government could very well proceed by order, as it did before. We hope to provoke that thought.
Many of these firearms have similar characteristics to the AR‑15 and are not at all used for hunting. It would have been utterly ridiculous for the government to keep these firearms legal when it banned more than 2,000 by regulation on May 1, 2020. Again, they sat on this.
Members will recall that the Bloc Québécois asked the government to immediately ban the 470,000 models that are not used for hunting and to ask a committee about 12 models that are potentially used for hunting, such as the popular SKS.
Throughout the process, the government did a poor job and created a tempest of its own making. It was rather unfortunate. For its part, the NDP also pushed to relax the ban on assault weapons and the freeze on handguns. The Bloc Québécois managed to block most of the NDP manoeuvres. Once again, I say hats off to my colleague.
The government's definition seeks to ban semi-automatic weapons that discharge centrefire ammunition and that were originally designed with a detachable magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more. This definition is easy to circumvent by selling the gun with a five-round magazine. Then there is nothing preventing the manufacturer from marketing and selling the gun with a 30-round magazine in the United States, for example. These magazines are prohibited in Canada, but their proliferation in the United States makes it easy to import them. For the time being, this is still a flaw, but we hope that this will be resolved in the next few months. The government has said that it will look at that again. We will be monitoring that.
The definition presented in the fall of 2022 talked about firearms designed with a magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more. In other words, it was the characteristics of the gun that were being considered and not the way it was being marketed. Nova Scotia's Mass Casualty Commission also proposed that the definition talk about firearms designed to accept this type of magazine. The Bloc Québécois proposed a subamendment to that effect, but senior officials implied that this wording was rejected by the government for political reasons. The NDP clearly wanted to narrow the scope of the definition. The three other parties voted against our subamendment in committee. However, PolyRemembers and gun control groups supported it.
The government imposed a gag order to quickly wrap up the study of Bill C-21, but the government itself is responsible for how slowly the bill is moving forward. It chose to quickly introduce a bill that was incomplete following the shootings in Uvalde, rather than take an extra few months and introduce a more complete bill.
Even in committee, the government complained that clause-by-clause was proceeding too slowly, but the fact is that members were never able to consider these amendments properly at committee. If the government had done its work properly prior to that, members could have heard from experts and asked questions on a bill that was much more complete. Things dragged on as a result.
The bill also restricted the acquisition of all replica firearms, including airsoft and paintball guns. The original wording of the bill was vague and implied that an airsoft or paintball gun that cannot be mistaken for a real gun could still be legally acquired. For example, if the gun were neon yellow, it could probably still be legally acquired. The problem is that the police did not want to ban these guns because they were concerned that they would be used to commit crimes such as robberies, but rather because many models allow criminals to assemble a complete weapon by purchasing only a barrel and slide, or the barrel and chamber, in the case of an assault weapon. In addition, police believe that many of these guns are designed to look exactly like the real thing, using the original blueprints, to the point where the parts could be interchanged. Criminals can buy a cheap airsoft gun legally. Then they simply have to get the gun's barrel and slide across the U.S. border, which substantially reduces the risk and cost for organized crime.
Here again, the Bloc Québécois scored a win. It succeeded in convincing the government not to ban toys simply for their appearance, but rather to proceed with a ban by regulation. The Bloc Québécois suggested that the government ban the import of replicas designed to be interchangeable with a real gun. That was another Bloc Québécois improvement to this bill.
In closing, what is happening south of the border is just plain crazy. Gun violence has become an epidemic. The tragedies of the last few weeks simply defy imagination. Society must force politicians to get to the root of the problem. There is still much to be done, but Bill C-21 is a step in the right direction this thanks to the improvements made by the Bloc Québécois, and thanks to the improvements made by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
I would simply like to end by saying that this is all very sad. It is May 2023. I remember that the Bloc Québécois had already reacted after the 2019 election. That was the 30th anniversary of the events at Polytechnique. At the time, groups were already pointing out that our proposals were well-thought-out and sensible. This issue is important to us and we work hard on it. Even my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord pointed out today how hard the Bloc Québécois has worked on this. Indeed, and that is because we have been listening to the groups involved. We have always worked in a sensible way.
We need to avoid the disinformation I have been hearing since this morning from my Conservative colleagues in the House. It is time to take action. As I said, it is a file that has been dragging on for far too long.
2006 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of comments that the member expressed. I wanted to highlight that it is great to see that Bill C-21 is being supported by the Bloc and the New Democrats. We have seen amendments that have been brought forward. It is good, healthy and stronger legislation as a direct result. It is a little bit more than the legislation, which is good.
One of the interesting stats that I heard about had to do with border crossings as 1,200 illegal guns were acquired last year, in addition to 73,000 other weapons. Would the member not agree that it is good we bring forward legislation such as this through budgetary measures to support our law enforcement officers so that they are better equipped and supported in dealing with getting illegal guns off the street?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, Bill C‑21 deals with legal firearms in particular, but there is the whole issue of illegal firearms. That is why I was talking about Bill C‑279, which would make it possible to make a list of criminal groups, look at what is happening at the border, invest in the work associated with public safety.
As I said, what is happening south of the border has consequences here. Weapons trafficking is happening on both sides and we definitely need to do a better job on this. The numbers show that there are far too many illegal firearms, specifically 95%. That is huge. Now that Bill C‑21 has been worked on, we definitely need to address these illegal firearms.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to talk more about the red flag provision. We know that an impressive number of women's groups in Canada have said that they are against such a measure. These women have said that this will take responsibility away from law enforcement and put victims of domestic violence in danger if they have to go to court to try to get a gun taken away from a potentially violent licence holder.
I named some of those groups earlier. They include the Canadian Women's Foundation, Women's Shelters Canada, the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the National Association of Women and the Law, and PolyRemembers.
Dozens and dozens of women's groups have said that they are against the red flag provision. That is why the Bloc Québécois voted against this measure. However, the government decided to go ahead with it anyway with the support of the NDP.
As the critic for status of women, how does my colleague see the government's refusal to listen to women's groups?
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is what I was saying earlier when I was talking about the good work done by the Bloc Québécois. We need to listen to what is happening on the ground.
As I was saying earlier, on the one hand, the Conservatives are unfortunately spreading disinformation about hunting rifles and on the other hand, I get the impression that the Liberal government is practising fake feminism again.
They are trying to ease their conscience. A red flag provision looks good and is impressive. It gives the impression of concern for the issue of violence against women.
However, if they had listened to the groups who work with women every day, if they had done the in-depth work, they would have realized that the red flag provision does not actually meet the needs of women who are victims of violence. I am thinking about PolyRemembers and all the groups my colleague named.
This only contributes to giving the government the image of fake feminism, when it could have proposed real measures to protect women who are victims of violence.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the debate that we are having this evening on Bill C‑21 and that we will likely continue tomorrow.
I want to approach this issue from a completely different angle, from my perspective as a hunter. I have been a proud hunter since the age of 15 and I am 61 years old now. I started hunting with my brother Pierre. He is the one who introduced me to hunting, particularly waterfowl hunting. It is important to point out that my riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is mainly a rural riding. There are two slightly bigger communities, Montmagny and Rivière-du-Loup, where a lot of hunters live.
My entire riding is located either along the St. Lawrence River or in the Appalachian Mountains. It is a very beautiful area, where nature is only a two-minute car ride or a five-minute walk away. It is an area where one really can commune with nature every day. I am sure that my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia would say the same thing in that these are rural areas that are exceptional in every way, particularly in the quality and beauty of the surroundings. They are extremely large ridings. Mine is 7,500 square kilometres.
All we find along the river are flats and birds of all kinds, mainly shorebirds such as ducks, geese, teals, snow geese and Canada geese. I remember when my brother showed me how to hunt, when I was a teenager. I went with him to the edge of the flats where we would hunt snow geese and ducks in the fields. To him that was the most important thing he could teach me about hunting. We had to watch the birds and be mindful of our position and the wind direction. All these elements of nature were very important, but there was also how to handle firearms as a hunter, which was especially important.
Obviously, a firearm is an object that comes with risks, like many other objects. The risk is significant if the firearms are not handled appropriately given their inherent risks. My brother made sure to explain to me how firearms are to be handled and that we had to walk around with unloaded firearms.
I was 15 years old when I started hunting with my brother. When I turned 16, I took a firearms safety course. I passed handily because my brother had already taught me about how to handle and shoot firearms. Not only did he teach me how to handle them, but he also taught me how to protect myself and others when carrying a firearm. The relationship that was established between my brother and me continues today, which means that we always hunt together quite regularly, especially in places that have changed over time. For example, ducks and geese have changed their migration routes somewhat. Montmagny is Canada's snow goose capital. For the past 60 years, a rather interesting festival has been held there. As part of this festival, there are firearm handling demonstrations and, above all, presentations on nature conservation.
For me, this last point is fundamental. I have a vivid memory of the times my brother took me hunting. We would wake up at three or four in the morning to get to the fields before sunrise. To be in a field, surrounded by the autumn dew at five in the morning as the sun is rising, is an incredible experience. People often sleep in too late to see the sunrise. They see sunsets often, but a sunrise is even more spectacular, especially in our region.
The experience nurtured my love of my region and my love of hunting, as well as my respect for the animals we hunt. In my mind, respect for nature and the desire to conserve it are closely linked to firearms. A firearm lets us benefit from nature, within the limits of the law and proper handling.
When I returned to my region in 1988, I started a family. I moved to Rivière‑Ouelle, a little hamlet of about 1,500 inhabitants near the St. Lawrence. I lived on a concession road. People could set off on their bicycles to go hunting. Geese landed on the river in front of our place. I get a little emotional talking about this because I started taking my own son hunting when he was four years old. We went hunting, but without guns. We went hunting so we could observe nature and the behaviour of the migratory birds that flew past our house and in the surrounding area.
There were thousands of them, of course. There were one million snow geese back then. The population declined at one point, but I think it is now back to that level because there is less hunting. Like it or not, there are fewer hunters than there used to be. The migratory bird population has increased. Even so, nature has not changed.
When I say I used to take my son hunting without a gun, it was to help him to grasp the same thing my brother taught me way back when. For me, respect for nature is intimately linked to hunting. I wanted to back up and talk about the name of the river, but I only have two minutes left. Of course, in the mountains, there is more talk about wildlife, partridges, hares, deer and moose. I enjoy that kind of hunting, too.
The government's intention, what it wanted to do from the outset with the bill before us today, was to reduce the number of guns that there are in Canada, including those used by hunters, unfortunately. However, we must not forget the respect that hunters have for nature, not only for the landscape, but also for the animals that they track when hunting. I know thousands of such people. By the way, I am a bit biased, as I co-own a business that sells hunting and fishing supplies, including guns. If I owned that business without having been a hunter first, I think it would have been different. People will say I am not impartial, and that is true.
The government's intention from the beginning was to do away with hunters. The problem in Canada is not hunters or hunters' guns. The problem in Canada is guns illegally imported from the United States. Since this government came to power, the crime rate has increased by 32%, and violence by armed groups or street gangs has increased by 90%. We are not making this up. These are real figures that are publicly available. I repeat, the problem in Canada is not hunters or hunting guns. The problem is street gangs and illegal guns coming into Canada.
1156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
