44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
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
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the head office of a federation in his riding that represents hunters from all over Quebec. There are obviously other associations across Canada that do the same thing, and all of these associations have a very specific goal. My colleague talked about their goals and objectives in his speech.
I do not know whether my colleague is a hunter, but since he is from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, he is very familiar with the connection between hunting and nature in his riding.
What is that connection?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 8:02:01 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier for a very brief response.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it will be difficult to be brief. I will thank my colleague, but I will not mention his riding to save time.
I am, in fact, not a hunter. However, the landscape is extraordinary in Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier. I am a conservationist, just like hunters, sport shooters, farmers and indigenous peoples, and we are all aligned.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank everyone who is here this evening and all those folks out there in TV land watching this debate.
Certainly, there are many folks in Canada now who have lost that historical connection to hunting, and as my eloquent colleagues from la belle province said, it is still something many people love to do. Growing up in rural New Brunswick, as I did, it was something my family and I did as well. I have to echo the comments of my colleagues in the sense that, the joy we derived from being out in nature, being with one another, observing nature and using skills that have been passed down for generations, such as tracking animals and being able to understand how that process works, is really part of the heritage I experienced as a proud rural Canadian.
As I grew, I had the ability to join the military, and that created two things. The number one thing, as we know, is that some of the restrictions around firearms in this country made it very difficult to transport firearms, get them licenced and all that stuff. As that happened, both my brother and I were in the military, and we decided at that point to get rid of the firearms our family had, many of them for many years. As I reflect upon that, it creates a bit of sadness now because that is a tradition that I was not able to pass on to the rest of my family.
That being said, the military created a different relationship with firearms. It was different only in the sense of what their intended purpose was, what they looked like, how they shot bullets and how many, etc. That being said, respect for firearms is what continued to be pervasive in my approach to them. I think that one of the things people around here who have not had much experience with firearms either do not want to understand or refuse to understand is the respect we had for firearms.
I remember being a child at that time when there were not many restrictions. The firearms were on the wall. They did not have trigger locks, and they were never loaded. Also, let us be clear that it was not something people took off the wall, pointed at other people and did foolish things with. They were designed for a purpose. We knew that purpose, and we respected that purpose. Sadly, some of those things have changed.
As I said, I got into the military. I was a physician there, of course. The firearms training for doctors was somewhat different. Maybe it was just my skill level that was somewhat different, but nonetheless we did go ahead and have our days on the ranges. Again, they were all very enjoyable. It certainly is a skill that one can learn, and if practised well, one can become very adept. There are many stories around that.
Indeed, in my own riding of Cumberland—Colchester, in Springhill, there is an incredible history of sport shooting. One family in Springhill has won the Queen's Medal for Champion Shot 10 times. When we look at the incredible experience that family has shared from generation to generation, it is also with one of the most storied units in Canadian military history, the Nova Scotia Highlanders, of which I had the opportunity to be the honorary colonel at one point. Understanding this incredible and rich military history and the impact that the changes Bill C-21 would bring to the ability to undertake things such as sport shooting is incredibly sad.
I think from my own riding there are a couple of other things that are important to note. One is the incredible shooting group called the Oxford Marksmen Association. I had an opportunity last year to partake in a day at the range with those folks. Again, the word “respect” is what I really think I need to underline. There is the respect that group has for the firearms and for the sport shooting we undertook that day. Once again, sadly I was absolutely terrible, and they took no short time of making sure I knew that, but I am okay with that. If I could practise more, I would be much better, I am sure.
The other thing that is important is a group, also in my riding, called Women That Hunt. It is a great group of women who realize, again, that important family and nature connection they are able to have and create.
In particular, we often see women who have never had the opportunity to handle a firearm go through that entire process and understand the process of learning about the firearm, learning about munitions, understanding how to be in nature and then, also, understanding the very strict process that many of my colleagues have talked about here in the House with the licensing procedure that we have here in Canada.
In essence, when we look at all of those things, I would suggest that the rural riding of Cumberland—Colchester has a significant history of firearm usage and understanding the necessity of that from a hunting perspective.
Just next door is Kings—Hants, and one of my colleagues, the member for Kings—Hants, participated in the debate on Bill C-21 and spoke out with much shenanigans, I will say, in committee, on Bill C-21. He was perhaps almost supporting an amendment to protect sports shooting. However, sadly, when the vote came, that member abstained. Clearly, part of the demise of sports shooting in the country is related to that individual.
At some point, we have to stand up to be counted. When we are elected to come to this place, that is what we are asked to do, which is to represent those folks in our riding. Of course, with Kings—Hants being mainly a rural riding, I would suggest there would be many people who would be exceedingly disappointed, not only with the fact that the member did not take a position but also that it was an abstention. When we look at those things, that is something for which, I think, as I said previously, we need to stand up to be counted.
I think it has become very clear that there is some protection in Bill C-21 around Olympic shooters. It becomes very clear, though. How can one become, say, for instance, an Olympic kayaker, if one did not have the opportunity to get into a kayak? That would be very difficult, and perhaps there are people around here who might find that to be a very difficult thing.
I had a great friend. He was in the Olympics in 1980, 1984 and 1988 as a kayaker, a very excellent kayaker. If, in 1988, the use of the kayak were banned in Canada, there could have been many individuals who would have been affected without the ability to go to the Olympics and participate in kayak. We will see that with Olympic shooting now, that there will be people, of course, who will not be able to participate in that.
That being said, I think there are two things I need to round off on. As we have heard here repeatedly, gun crimes, gangs and violence associated with that are not being undertaken by hunters, of course. That is a nonsensical notion. I think a common-sense approach to that would be something that would be exceedingly important.
One final, very sad note is that my Liberal colleagues across the way have often brought the Portapique mass shooting into this debate, which I think is deplorable. It is despicable. It is really something that should never have been done. We know very clearly that the madman, that maniac, who committed those crimes, those murders, that shooting, was not a legal firearms owner, and certainly, that was not done with legal firearms.
To bring that into this was unacceptable. Of course, there was the disrespectful and unacceptable interference we saw with the head of the RCMP, the commissioner of the RCMP at that time, and the use of that incident to talk about this order in council. It was, once again, unacceptable. I just want to highlight that point because, of course, Portapique is in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester.
On that note, hopefully those brief personal experiences, which have great meaning for me, will help Canadians understand what our position on this side of the House is, which is to protect those rights of legal gun owners in Canada.
1443 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have one comment. I shot myself in the military, or I should say, I did not shoot myself, but I was taught to shoot in the military, and I like to go to the range.
If some of the weapons that would be banned were available at the range where we could just go out to rent them and shoot an AR-15, which is a very fun gun to shoot, would that be of interest to the hon. member?
Would the hon. member agree that, in spite of any weapons that are not going to be available in the future, there are still more than enough models available for hunters to go about doing what they do?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for that comment. I think the big thing is related to the rights of hunters. That is really the moral of the story that I wanted to portray here in the House this evening, which is the understanding that hunting is something that can be a family event. We know that is one of the things that Women That Hunt promote very eloquently.
It is about taking someone who has never handled a firearm before, who has not been out in nature, and move them through that process to become a safe user of a firearm and understand how it works. They can understand the benefits of nature.
As I mentioned, people also need to go through the incredibly rigorous process that we already have here in Canada to obtain a firearms licence and be able to purchase a firearm, and people need to better understand that. There has been lots of talk in the House about illegal firearms. However, when Canadians come to understand the process that already exists for vetting people who want to become legal firearms owners and hunters in this country, it becomes very clear that the processes we have now are generally satisfactory and quite rigorous in their application.
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let us try to be reasonable. I know that my colleague is one of the most reasonable members of his party. I am pleased to address my comments to him.
It is reasonable for me to tell him that we agree with the Conservatives on a whole host of things. This may surprise some people, but there are things that we agree on. For example, there should have been measures for illegal guns. There are none, and something should be done about that.
Also, the Liberal government has really mismanaged this file from the outset, with its infamous exhaustive list, which made no sense. We all agree on that.
Will my colleague agree with us about something that is very reasonable and admit that hunting rifles are definitely not affected by this bill?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his kind comments. The idea of maintaining decorum in this place is an important part of that.
I would go on to suggest that the difficulty with Bill C-21 is that it is an exact replica of what was presented before Canadians spoke out against that original form of the bill. As legislators, I think it is exceedingly important that, when we have an opportunity to hear from Canadians, we need to listen when Canadians voice their opinions to us. That is actually what we are here to do.
I realize I have only been here for 20 months, but I think it is very important we hear from the Canadians we represent. When people have an issue and speak out in numbers, not just loud people but numerous people, they actually have a point, and we need to understand very clearly what their point is because that, in essence, is our job. We are here to represent those folks across this great nation. I am proud to do that.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for sharing his stories. I have good news for him: He can get some practice in on June 6 at the parliamentary outdoor caucus. If he knows any kayakers who want to come out, he should bring them with him.
Why does he think the Liberal government continues to target law-abiding firearms owners? The government had its May 1 prohibition in 2020, its initial amendments around Bill C-21 and even the handgun ban. Restricted firearms owners are three times less likely to commit any crime than an average Canadian. Why are the Liberals focused on law-abiding firearms owners and not criminals?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great question. He is a great veteran. He served this country in combat and has incredible firearms experience. I thank him for that. I have great respect for that member. However, he is asking me to get into the heads of Liberals, and I have no idea how to do that, so I am going to refuse to answer that.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak out today concerning Bill C-21.
It is National Police Week, and today we stand with the women and men of the OPP, their families and their friends, who have seen three of their own shot, one of whom, sadly, has passed away. Since September 2022, we have seen 10 Canadian police officers killed in the line of duty. This trend cannot be allowed to continue. One soul taken is one too many. There is an illegal gun problem in Canada that needs to be addressed. Police officers go to work every day, leaving their families behind, to protect Canadians. They know they might not make it home at the end of the day. It is the responsibility of lawmakers and the House to do what we can to support and defend the police who protect us all.
Unfortunately, the current government is all set this week to point its ideologically driven legislative guns at law-abiding Canadian hunters, sport shooters, guides, outfitters and farmers to solve the problem. That will not work. It appears that the government, with the support of the NDP, has replaced an evidence-based system with a politically driven, ideologically based system void of evidence. How else can we explain the war on hunters in Kootenay—Columbia? The constituents in my riding are perplexed by this, so, on their behalf, I recently asked the Minister of Public Safety if he could share with me what percentage of crimes were committed by criminals with illegal guns versus the percentage committed by law-abiding Canadians who have legal guns. In an evidence-based legislative system, this is a logical question to ask. It requires a logical answer based on the facts of what is actually happening on the streets and communities across our country. I received a non-answer from the minister.
Today, I would like to answer that question for all Canadians, and specifically those in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia who have been in contact with my office expressing concern over the actions of the government. After 35 years of policing, I know the answer: very few legal gun owners using legal guns. This is the truthful answer that the public safety minister refused to provide Canadians. The facts and evidence around gun crime are inconvenient for the current government, so it conveniently ignores them.
Conservatives will not ignore them, and will continue to stand up for law-abiding Canadians. We will go after gangs and organized crime and will provide our policing agencies and border services with the funds needed to effectively stem the importation of illegal guns. Targeting hunters like Bill in Yahk, who uses a legal firearm to put food on his family's table, will not solve the problem. Targeting responsible sport shooters like Ron in Salmo, who uses a legal restricted firearm for sport and competes internationally, will not solve the problem. Targeting hard-working farmers like Mike, who uses a legal firearm to protect himself from bears while out in the field, will not solve the problem.
I agree we need to have gun laws, but the government is targeting Canadians who have legal guns. Why does it not go after the ones who have illegal guns, the criminals? Why does it not redirect the billions of dollars it plans to spend on the confiscation program into education programs? Successful crime prevention, again, not directed at lawful Canadians but at gangs and organized crime, starts with youth and must continue throughout their life. Education programs steering our youth away from gangs and organized crime can be successful when delivered at the right time.
The government should scrap Bill C-21. It is not effective and will not be successful. Once again, there is a fundamental difference in approach between the current government and the government-in-waiting. On this side, we have an evidence-based approach, and on that side they have a politically driven, ideological approach. It is not just with respect to guns that we see this approach failing, but also on housing, violent crimes, bail policies and addictions. After eight years, it all feels broken. The evidence will not be found on the front step of Sussex Drive but is happening in real time in cities like Cranbrook and Nelson, in my riding, where chaos and disorder are rampant.
Over the last eight years, our communities, people and brave police have become less safe, with a 32% increase in violent crime and a doubling of gang murders. We need to immediately bring in tougher laws to address serious, violent offenders. We must end the catch-and-release bail system. We need serious sentencing laws to ensure that violent offenders are kept in prison. We need to support our police by giving them the laws and tools they need to do their job and keep them safe. Several high-profile violent street crimes are in the news. These crimes are often committed by offenders released on bail or parole. This crime wave is causing Canadians to feel less safe taking transit or simply being out in their community. Police associations, provinces and other stakeholder groups have called, for months, for significant bail reforms, stricter penalties and other measures to enhance safety.
Just recently, a man in B.C. was given only 67 days in jail before becoming eligible for release after a violent, random assault on a 70-year-old person who was on a bus. Our communities feel less safe, and the government is doing nothing to stop it. Under current justice laws, mandatory minimums on some gun crimes have been reduced, and we see violent offenders released back on the streets, sometimes the same hour they are arrested. The catch-and-release system puts everyone at risk.
Canadians deserve to feel safe in their community, and repeat violent offenders deserve jail, not bail. The government-in-waiting would bring back mandatory jail time for serious violent crimes, which was repealed by the government, and would crack down on the easy access to bail in Bill C-75, which makes these tragedies more likely. We would bring in bail rules that would ensure serious repeat violent offenders remain behind bars as they await trial. We would put the safety of Canadians first and we would do what is necessary to keep violent criminals, gangs and organized crime, those who are perpetuating gun violence, where they belong, behind bars.
To my constituents, I would say that the government has tried a few variations of Bill C-21, using legislative tricks and last-minute amendments. Each time, the Conservatives have forced them to be accountable to Canadians. However, the public safety minister recently introduced new amendments to the bill to create a definition by which new firearms would be banned. The minister also announced that he would appoint a firearms advisory committee, which would determine future bans of firearms that are presently owned by law-abiding Canadian gun owners. It is expected that, between these measures, most of the firearms previously targeted by the Liberal amendments last year, including hunting rifles, would also be targeted for future bans.
The government passed Bill C-21 through committee late in the night by heavily limiting debate on clauses and amendments. Let me be very clear. The Liberals have not changed their ideology; they are simply changing their approach to this legislation, which would allow them to decide, without consultation with the members of the House, the people's representatives, which hunting firearms they would confiscate and which ones they would allow. The Prime Minister already admitted that taking hunting rifles is his goal, when he said, “Our focus now is on saying okay...yes...we're going to have to take [them] away from people who were using them to hunt.”
Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is focused on taking hunting rifles and shotguns from law-abiding farmers, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous peoples, with the support of the NDP. The new definition of firearms to be banned is the same as the old one. It is safe to assume that the commonly used hunting firearms targeted by the government this past fall would be added to a ban by the new government-appointed firearms advisory panel.
Ramming the bill through committee in the dead of night is evidence that the government wants to circumvent democracy, stifle debate and take firearms away from law-abiding Canadians without their knowledge. This ban is not about handguns or so-called assault-style firearms; it is about the government taking steps to confiscate hunting rifles. Canadians are wide awake to these tactics. Conservatives support common-sense firearm policies that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The government-in-waiting would invest in policing and a secure border rather than spending billions confiscating firearms from law-abiding farmers, hunters, sport shooters and indigenous Canadians. We would crack down on border smuggling and stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada.
If the House is serious about returning safe streets to Canadians, we will vote on Bill C-21 based on evidence, not ideology, and we will lay responsibility of gun crime and lost souls at the feet of those responsible: criminals who use illegal guns.
1569 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
