44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
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
Madam Speaker, it is disappointing in terms of the Conservative Party's overall approach to Bill C-21. As I indicated earlier this afternoon, the Conservative Party seems to be more concerned about raising money with Bill C-21 than it is about delivering safety to our communities. A good example of that is how this legislation would have the red flags and would deal with ghost guns. These are the types of things that would have a very positive impact, but the Conservatives say they are not going to support this legislation, because they want to raise money. That is more important. Can the member indicate to the House when the Conservative Party is going to recognize that the safety of Canadians is more important than raising money for the Conservative Party?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member's condescension is totally unacceptable. Political parties raising funds in connection with various issues is routine. The Liberals do the same thing, as a matter of fact. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Of course Conservatives want to protect the public, but this is about taking aim at the right targets, so to speak. The truth is, hunters, sport shooters and Olympic athletes are not the problem. The problem is street gangs and criminals who take guns, usually handguns, and use them to commit crimes in big cities.
Fortunately, the crime rate where I am in Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is very low. That is due in large part to the fact that people obey the law, which is very clear about what people can do with weapons. Now, the scope of the regulations is so broad that hunters have to handle their weapons a certain way in order to comply. For instance, they have to lock up their guns. People in my community follow those rules.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was a lot more nuanced than those of most of his colleagues. I commend him for that.
He talked about how beautiful the Lower St. Lawrence area is and how close it is to nature. I agree with him. We are practically neighbours. Our ridings are both in the Lower St. Lawrence region and not far from each other.
He also sang the praises of hunting. He told us stories about his family and about how, when he was young, he went hunting without a gun just to birdwatch. I have some good news for him. He is going to be able to continue hunting without a gun. I am just joking. He will be able to continue hunting with his rifle because Bill C-21 does not affect hunting rifles. Those are two pieces of good news for my colleague. That is all I wanted to say.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member made a joke, so I will make one too. Good jokes always carry a deeper truth. We see how the Bloc Québécois positions itself: It no longer wants people to go hunting. No, it is not true.
In fact, I will respond to my colleague anyway. I could almost quote what her colleague from Rivière-du-Nord said when the amendments were proposed last fall. He said that he could not have done better. That is a Bloc Québécois MP who comes from a region and who is the colleague of my neighbouring colleague from the Lower St. Lawrence who said such a thing. In these amendments, in this list of 300 pages, there were hunting rifles and there are still hunting rifles.
What the Conservatives mainly want to avoid is for hunters to be targeted, which has been the case from day one. Let us go back a few years. At the time, Mr. Chrétien said that the gun registry would cost $200 million. That number went up to $2 billion. Today, if we had kept it, it would cost a fortune.
The government wants to use this bill to attack law-abiding hunters. It has not set its sights on the right target. It should instead invest more money to ensure that our borders are safe.
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for the speech he just gave. It was very heartfelt. It came from the depths of his being.
It is an honour for me to rise in the House to represent the people of the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier, which is home to many hunters, fishers, sport shooters and farmers. There are also some indigenous people. I am very proud today.
My first reaction when I learned of the amendments made to Bill C‑21 by the Liberals was simple. They had missed the mark. They were taking the wrong approach.
We are used to the Liberal government's inconsistency, whether it concerns Bill C-11 or Bill C-13, the bill to which I have made an active contribution over the past few months. Yesterday, we passed this bill. The Conservative Party supported it, but we wish the government had done more. Nevertheless, we align ourselves with the intentions of the Government of Quebec and official language minority communities.
Now we are talking about Bill C-21, which also demonstrates the inconsistency of the Liberal government. The government is not walking the talk. I will use the same expression as the Bloc Québécois leader, who said earlier in the House today that he will explain to the Liberals what this expression means one day. I urge him to explain it to them as soon as possible, because it is quite obvious. We have noticed the same thing.
I believe that all parliamentarians in the House agree on the objective of this bill, which is to improve public safety in Canada. This is critical, because after eight years of this government, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related homicides have doubled. I am not making this up. This is not me saying so. It is not partisan rhetoric. It is not the evil Conservative Party attacking the good Liberals. This is a fact. I do not understand how they can defend this.
The Liberal government's approach to achieving this goal is completely out of touch with reality. As I said, the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is an area with many hunters, fishers and farmers. It is largely rural. As in many other rural and semi-urban ridings in Canada, hunting season is a highly anticipated time of year. For many, it is a tradition, while for others, it is a family activity. It is a hobby. Young and old gather to practise this sport that has been passed down from generation to generation. Some hunt purely for pleasure. For others, it is an outright necessity in order to feed themselves, as a result of the Liberals' inflationary practices that are leaving Canadians hungry.
Two weeks ago, I was attending the annual convention of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs. I did not see any Liberals there. It took place in Saint‑Jérôme. What I heard from the people I met at the annual convention was clear: They are worried about the consequences of this bill. This federation is not a run-of-the-mill organization. It is a solid institution that represents hunters and anglers throughout Quebec. Its mission is to represent and defend the interests of Quebec's hunters and anglers, help teach safe practices and actively participate in wildlife conservation and development to ensure that resources remain sustainable and that hunting and fishing continue to be practised as traditional, heritage and recreational activities.
I have a question. What is criminal about that? Absolutely nothing. These people simply want to enjoy nature and engage in an activity that has existed for millions of years. It is important to remember that, in the past, people bartered with what they hunted. They would trade pelts for mirrors. This is nothing new.
Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I want to point out that the federation's head office is located in the most beautiful riding in the Quebec City region—I will make the area a bit smaller—Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I want to commend the federation president, Marc Renaud.
I would like to read an excerpt from a news release issued by the federation after the government tabled its new amendments on May 1. It says, and I quote:
The federation understands the importance of public safety and supports the government's efforts to keep Canadians safe. However, we have raised concerns about how effective the methods proposed in Bill C‑21 will be in meeting that objective. We believe that gun violence is a complex problem that requires a holistic approach, one that takes into account underlying factors such as poverty, mental health, organized crime, human trafficking and drug trafficking. We also recognize that firearms are not the only source of violence, as demonstrated by recent events in which other tools were used to commit crimes. We are therefore calling for a comprehensive review to come up with meaningful, intelligent and lasting solutions to these complex social problems.
To me, this is a call for a common-sense approach. Let us not reinvent the wheel. Again, as I was saying from the outset, this bill misses the mark.
Let us be clear here: Hunters are not the reason the crime rate in urban centres is higher than ever. We need to address organized crime and violent reoffenders to make the streets safer across Canada. Hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous people are not criminals.
When I attended the convention two weeks ago in Saint‑Jérôme, I felt very comfortable. These people are cordial, polite, civilized and intelligent, and I enjoyed meeting them. I did not feel like I was in danger. These are not criminals. Again, hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous people are not criminals.
When we talk about criminals, we are talking about people who break the law. We could bring in a whole host of laws to have one model over another, to allow or not allow a certain model or to allow it with some exceptions. We can do that, but the criminals will never respect these rules. We need to address the problem differently.
A Conservative government will invest in maintaining law and order and securing the border rather than spending billions of dollars to take guns away from law-abiding Canadians.
Today, we have repeated over and over that amendments G‑4 and G‑46, the amendments that sought to ban firearms used by hunters and sport shooters, were withdrawn. Why were they withdrawn? It is because the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in Ottawa, did its job. The minister boasted about those amendments and vigorously defended them, but he retreated when faced with common sense because the Conservatives made him see the light. I must say that they had other accomplices from other parties here in the House of Commons. It was not the Conservatives.
The government's new amendments are just a way of getting the work done through regulations. It is not meeting the target. We are not fools. We are used to these government tactics. I will repeat what we have said all day long: The Conservative Party is the only party to protect Canadians across the country, whether they live in large cities or rural communities.
This is a very technical bill. We worked very hard in committee to study the amendments, despite the time constraints imposed by the Liberals.
We want to do a good job on this bill, as we do on many others, but unfortunately, we are being muzzled. We are doing some work, but we could do so much more.
When we are in government, we will stand up for hunters and workers, because these individuals have rights, and we will work to protect them.
1353 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned common sense. Last year, and I mentioned this earlier, there were 1,200 guns taken away from borders. There were 73,000 weapons seized at the border. This is a government that has actually invested in our border controls. We can contrast that with Stephen Harper's time, when there were actually cutbacks. Was there ever a year, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when he received even half of the 1,200 guns and 73,000 weapons that we received last year? I suspect the answer is no, but I would be interested in what the member has to say on it.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to say hello to my colleague from Winnipeg North. I am not sure whether he heard my speech or whether he is paying much attention to the comments of the official opposition. We are accustomed to that. He just fills in the blanks. I will simply say this to my colleague: What does his question have to do with Bill C-21?
My colleague is out of touch, and it shows once again that the Liberal Party of Canada is also out of touch with the real people on the ground, the hunters and the sport shooters. I am disappointed by his question, but I will respect it and I hope he will respect my answer.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which set a tone that should be universal and consistent when it comes to defending humans against gun violence. His tone was both measured and calm.
I wanted to tell him that my father was a hunter and that we also hunted snow geese in Isle‑aux‑Coudres. We saw just as many as my colleague would have seen on his side of the river. As long as there was game in the house, I would eat it morning, noon and night. My dad would stuff the goose, and we would eat it. The frightening truth is that I would eat every bit of it, including the gizzard. We still eat them from time to time, because I have a few friends who still hunt.
It is funny. People who hunt told me that, finally, the Bloc Québécois understood the issue of protecting hunters and hunting rifles, while excluding other weapons that could be misleading. I would like my colleague to tell me how the Bloc Québécois has taken firearms away from hunters. On the contrary, we have worked together to clarify the situation.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix for her question. It is always interesting to work with her.
I am pleased that the members of the Bloc Québécois now think that this is common sense, but it took some time before they understood that. We need to understand where this bill came from. In one video, we can see the member for Rivière-du-Nord saying, “Wow! If we had to write a firearms bill, this is how we would have written it”. That was for the first iteration of the bill. There were amendments after that.
I thank my colleague for having accepted the Conservative Party's recommendations and criticisms, which were in the best interests of hunters and sport shooters. We are very pleased about that, and we are taking the credit. I thank the Bloc Québécois for supporting the Conservative Party because we are standing up for rural communities.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
