44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
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
Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the fact that there are some very progressive measures in the legislation, including one around ghost guns. Law enforcement agencies have talked a great deal about how this is becoming an issue of a very serious nature, and they are looking for legislation. We are attempting, in the legislation, to provide that tool to law enforcement, and it is being well received.
What does the member have to say about that aspect? Could the member provide some sense of why the Conservatives continue to say that this legislation would prevent people from being able to hunt, or to give that sort of impression, when we know it is just not the case?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, members might recall that, about two years ago, I brought up ghost guns, before the government decided to move on that. I have family friends, and know many other people, who work in gang enforcement in British Columbia, including in Surrey. I brought up ghost guns and said that those were what we should be targeting, not hunting rifles. That was a few years ago. Now we are targeting them, so obviously that is the right step.
The other thing we have to think about now is, if we put this legislation through and an advisory panel decides to prohibit hunting rifles, then we are right back at square one. To me, the bill has to scrapped. The government should put that money towards something that we would get something out of, like education for children, or giving the police more for enforcement along the borders, when we know that 80% of illegal guns are coming from the United States. That money should be put into something from which we would get results.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but I disagree with his ideology.
We see this bill as being more about the facts, about things that have happened. I think the Conservatives are spreading a lot of disinformation. I would like to point out that hunting weapons are for hunting, not for shooting sprees, so they are not included in this bill. I would like the Conservatives to actually read the bill so they can tell us more about it.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, while we are talking facts, I wonder if the member can show me a fact that says that seizing legal guns from legal gun owners is going to have a benefit. That is what is in this bill, so it is not fact-based; it is ideology.
We could talk about what more we could do to protect not only hunters, guides, outfitters and those who use rifles but also sport shooters who use handguns and want to cross into the U.S. to compete internationally. That is just part of what we, as Conservatives, want to have.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, perhaps many members do not know this, but that particular member is a long-serving member of the RCMP, specifically from the Special I division. If anybody here is speaking from a place of authority, it actually would be this particular member who just spoke. I wonder if he could expand on his personal experiences as a police officer and give his opinion on whether Bill C-21 would be able to save the lives of officers in the future.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what I am looking for is always results-based. What is going to actually work? What we are doing today is failing right now with the serious crime, the shootings and the deaths of members. What we are doing to battle organized crime and gangs is not working. From my experience, we need to change course. We should be focusing, first, on educational programs for our youth and, second, on enforcement against organized crime and gang activity, which means border crossings with illegal guns. We need to start putting more money into that. Spending a billion dollars on the confiscation of legal guns is absolutely not based on any kind of evidence.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining this debate at this late hour. I have been sitting through many hours of debate on this particular subject of Bill C-21.
I will begin by thanking constituents again for returning me to Parliament. It has been a few years now since the election, but I am thankful every single day that I can represent them in this House. Part of my thanks for them will be that I am going to read into the record later many of the emails I have received with respect to Bill C-21 from hunters and sport shooters who are upset that the government is continuing on with Bill C-21.
I want to begin, though, with a quote from someone I consider an expert on firearms legislation, Dr. Teri Bryant, Alberta's chief firearms officer:
Even after the withdrawal of G-4 and G-46, Bill C-21 continues to undermine confidence in our firearms control system while contributing nothing to reducing the violent misuse of firearms. Bill C-21 is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. Prohibiting specific types of firearms is not an effective way of improving public safety. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been used on more effective approaches, such as the enforcement of firearms prohibition orders, reinforcing the border or combatting the drug trade and gang activity.
That is just common-sense Alberta right there from a well-known Albertan, for many of us.
The original definition of a firearm, or what I will call the old definition used by the government, was: “...a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed,...”.
That original definition alone was in proposed clause G-4, and I have rarely seen so many emails received in my constituency office, that were written by people who were upset that they were being targeted after having done nothing. They were simply sport shooters and hunters who, through no fault of their own, were being targeted by the Minister of Public Safety. Now the Liberals have changed the definition to something new.
It says now, “It would include a firearm that is not a handgun...”, and I draw attention to “not a handgun”. It continues, “...in a semi-automatic manner and that was originally designed with a detachable magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more.”
I will note also that in the French version of the legislation they have dropped the reference to fusil de chasse, and now are using a very odd wording that looks like bad French maybe, but fusil de chasse for most francophones anywhere would mean hunting rifle, which is what the Prime Minister said was the intent of Bill C-21. It was exactly to go after hunters. He himself said, outside of the House, that some hunters would have to lose their hunting rifles. That was the purpose of Bill C-21.
I go on now to some of the comments made by my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, again drawing attention of people to comments made by the public safety minister. I have more to expand on that, too. He called into question the fact that in the future, they will have to do something about “permanent alteration of magazines”. Now, permanent alteration to magazines of any sort would go a step further than what is being done now and would impact many firearms.
I want to draw attention of the House to the fact that changing magazines would also require changes to a firearm like the Lee-Enfield, a very popular British firearm until about the 1950s. It was used broadly in World War I. It is a firearm widely used in Canada by many indigenous hunters. Many hunters in my riding have these firearms that were passed down through generations. Requiring them to alter that magazine would basically destroy the firearm. That is something the public safety minister is musing publicly. When I see other members of different parties say to trust them and it is written in the legislation, why would we trust them? Why should any hunter or any sport shooter trust them? There are 2.3 million firearms owners in Canada. Why should any of them trust what the Liberals have said so far?
I will draw attention to one more fact that kind of disturbs me. It is that the public safety minister, when Bill C-21 first came in, said there was a public safety crisis across Canada. He said that there were these “assault-style rifles” and then said it was a public emergency that Bill C-21 needed to be passed right away. Now in this legislation, months and months later after so much public blowback, the Liberals are grandfathering all previous firearms. Therefore, now it is okay to have these so-called by his own words assault-style rifles and now they are grandfathered in. They are not affected; only future firearms are affected. It is actually a point that has been made by several members of the Bloc and by the New Democrats as well that it is only future firearms that have not been manufactured yet, and hunters should be satisfied with that.
One, two or three generations from now, these firearms will get older, break down, be lost or damaged through use or misuse or simply be sold off due to families not wanting to keep them anymore because there is so much licensing involved. The Liberals are talking about the future. There will be a dwindling number of hunters, and the intention of the government is to dwindle them down. The public safety minister claimed there was this crisis going on, that we must seize these firearms from lawful firearms owners, that they should be taken away from hunters, and now, suddenly, we do not have this crisis. Now it is suddenly okay. Now they are grandfathered. I find that interesting. Constituents pointed it out to me.
More seriously, though, a member is a former member of the RCMP, in I Division. We used to joke in our caucus that decades ago, if we heard a cough at the end of our analog phone line, it was probably I Division listening in. The member was an RCMP officer. I was looking at the statistics for how many peace officers and police officers have been killed. In the past 20 years, 40 police officers and peace officers have been killed in the line of duty, 11 in the last 30 months and eight in the last nine months.
The reason we are going down this dark path is government legislation that has been passed since 2015. Bill C-21 is trying to make up for the errors the Liberals have made in criminal justice legislation, from Bill C-75 that hybridized a bunch of offences to Bill C-5. In Bill C-5, they changed things like extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting, knowing the firearm is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, including things like drive-by shootings, possession of a firearm, knowing its possession is unauthorized or illegally possessing a firearm. None of those have mandatory prison time any longer. The offenders serve their time at home if the judge determines that is appropriate.
I have a Yiddish proverb, before I read some thoughts from my constituents, who are my bosses. The proverb is, “The truth comes out like oil on water.” It percolates right to the top. I have been listening to the speeches and interventions by different members so far in this House. Again, we were told by the public safety minister that there was an urgent public safety crisis on our streets with these Black Stock firearms that should be taken off our streets, and now, suddenly, they are all grandfathered in. That has now become a talking point with some members. Something has changed. What has changed is low polling numbers and bad emails from upset constituents.
I will read some emails from my constituents, but I will only use their first names because I do not want the government to go after them. Ryan said, “Today, the federal Liberal government and their disgusting coalition with the federal NDP, as well as the Bloc, shut down the possibility of any further debate around their proposed amendments to C-21. The plan moving forward will be to appoint a meaningless panel that will essentially prohibit any firearm that they see fit.” A wise man is this Ryan. He knows exactly where this is going with this so-called firearms advisory committee. He went on to say, “All whilst completely disregarding the long heritage and tradition of firearms in Canada. This is a vicious slap in the face to the millions of responsible PAL and RPAL holders in Canada.”
I should probably disclose to Ryan and other constituents that I do not have a PAL or an RPAL, but I do appreciate the fact that they have a right to hunt and sharp shoot.
Christina and Maury said, “Considering the unethical and unconstitutional implementation of Bill C-21 originally, I would suggest that the bill be scrapped in its entirety.” Terence said, “Stop motion on Bill C-21.” Matthew said, “I'm not asking to kill the bill but vote against the Liberals' motion to ram the bill through the House without proper representation and debate.”
Craig said, “What the Liberals are doing is not democratic or constitutional. As a law-abiding firearms owner I feel insulted this bill is before us in the first place. We are not the issue, the criminals are the issue and yet it feels like they are getting a free pass.” Darren said, “This federal government is circumventing democratic and parliamentary due process and it must be stopped.” Another Matthew said, “I want it also to be known that I strongly oppose bills C-11, C-15 and C-21.”
When the general public knows the numbers of the bills, we know that there is a problem. We know that the oil has floated up to the top of the water, and the common-sense Canadian is seeing that Bill C-21 makes no sense.
An email from Brian said, “Like the many law-abiding hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous peoples in this country I feel betrayed [by the Liberal government].” Pat said, “It will cost taxpayers upwards of a billion dollars, money that would be better spent on increased monitoring of our borders to prevent gun trafficking.” Lee-Ann said, “Those of us who own guns have gone through training and vetting to be able to legally purchase and own these guns. We are responsible members of society who are being unfairly penalized because of leftist ideology, and it needs to be stopped.”
1883 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what is very clear from the member is that the Conservative Party is responding more to the gun lobbyists. He cites constituents and says he will give their first names, but not the last names because he does not want the government to attack them in any fashion. There is this whole fear factor that the Conservative Party continues to spread with misinformation, as if hunters, indigenous people and other law-abiding gun owners are going to be attacked by this legislation, when it is just not true.
Why do the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation when they know many of the things they are saying are just not true?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to respond to that ridiculous question, the only lobbyists I care about are my constituents who are lobbying me to vote against Bill C-21. So let us continue. George wrote, “I am tired of being lied to about licensed gun owners being the cause of firearm-related violence.... I am losing my firearms based on this new law and its amendments. I will never vote for them or their party if they don't withdraw C-21 in its entirety.”
Ryan wrote, “I am writing you this email to let you know how against this bill me and family are. I am a 45-year-old man who has been raised on wild meat all my life. I started hunting with my family when I was a child. Every year we go out and get meat for our families and we do so with our firearms. I have done this for over 30 years. I am a law-abiding citizen, a small business owner, a father and a provider. Now, am I going to become a criminal because of this bill?”
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about those two little words, “hunting gun”, which were in the government's first definition of prohibited weapons. He saw that and raised a hue and cry, accusing the big bad Liberal government of wanting to prohibit hunting guns.
When we saw that, we took action. We went to see the government. We asked it to go back to the drawing board and take those words out of the definition because they caused confusion. We asked the government to remove the list it was trying to put in the Criminal Code that would have prohibited weapons that are reasonably used for hunting. That was the Bloc Québécois's approach, and it succeeded. We now have a new definition that does not include hunting guns.
Instead of hitting the panic button and scaring hunters, instead of spreading disinformation about the bill, the Conservative Party could have worked with the Bloc Québécois to improve this bill.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, alas, I do not have any constituents who wrote to me in French so that I could read what they think of this bill. I do want to remind him that the member for Rivière-du-Nord said, when Bill C‑21 came out, that they could not have done better. It is therefore completely ridiculous to hear some members now brag about having worked hard when they agreed with the Liberals' bill.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to my hon. friend for Calgary Shepard, I do enjoy the use of Yiddish proverbs. One comes to mind from Tim Robbins from his novel, Still Life With Woodpecker: “Life is like a stew, you have to stir it frequently, or all the scum rises to the top.” Here in this place we have to stir and stir and do what we should do for Canadians, which is to give them the best possible service as MPs.
I ask the member, in that context, if he does not find it troubling that the very bills that have been, with due respect, hyped up in terms of rhetoric by the Conservatives in the House are the ones that come back to him. Does he think that perhaps it would behoove my friends in the Conservative Party to try to be more balanced in what is wrong with the bill, what is good with the bill and how we work together to give Canadians the best possible meal and keep the scum from rising to the top?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am a little worried in the way the member just described my constituents who are emailing me on this issue. They deserve to be heard, not to be name-called. They are concerned not because of what we are saying on this side of the House; they are concerned because the contents of the legislation is bad news for them.
I do not need to go around in my constituency raising up fears. They are fearful on their own. I have had many meetings on Bill C-21 and firearms legislation in the past six to eight months from constituents who do not reach out to me on a regular basis. I invite the member to come out to my riding, an urban Calgary riding, where this is the second most important issue. They deserve to be read into the record.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is an interesting evening and an interesting debate, but we need a little history when we are talking about guns.
The Chinese invented gunpowder, and by the 10th century they figured out how to put it in bamboo and invented guns. By the 13th century, we had the old metal barrels attached to them. By the 17th century, we figured out how to do muzzle loaders. By the 20th century, there was the Lee-Enfield gun and the Ross rifle. In the First World War, Canadians were quickly dumping the the Ross rifle, a beautifully made Canadian gun that had no place in the trenches of World War I, so they could find a Lee-Enfield. By the way, we still use that rifle in an indigenous context, and the rangers in the north are still using the Lee-Enfield rifle. The Canadian Ross rifle is long gone. Today, the most popular hunting rifle in Canada is the .30-06 Springfield gun.
I have shot a .30-06. I am not an avid hunter, but I have shot most guns. When I grew up, as kids we started with air rifles and then moved up to BB guns. Yes, we had those, and our mothers always warned us that we were going shoot each other's eyes out eventually with those things. We were pretty good at taking them apart, putting them back together, finding other parts and making them work. However, we did progress to the bigger guns as we got older.
To the point we are talking about, the Prime Minister has said, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. That is concerning, in a sense. Some people say we are out there spreading falsehoods and not talking about the truth, but when the Prime Minister says that, people get a little concerned.
There is a list of places in my riding. There is the Bassano Gun Club, the Brooks & District Fish & Game Association, the Brooks Pistol & Smallbore Rifle Club, the Mossleigh Gun Club, the Taber Pistol & Revolver Club, the Taber Shooting Foundation, the Vauxhall Fish & Game—Rod & Gun Club, the Hussar Fish and Game Club, the Milo gun range and the Vulcan and District Gun Club. These are shooting groups within my riding.
There is a report out there about violent crime. It said that of all instances of violent crime in Canada, a rifle or shotgun was present in 0.4% of cases. There is a lot of violent crime, a 32% increase, but very little has a rifle or shotgun.
It has been said many times in the House today that the Liberals introduced legislation by order in council. They have put about 1,500 types of guns in there. That did not go so well, so finally they introduced legislation, Bill C-21, about a year later. Then it headed to committee stage, and at the end of the committee stage, the Liberals dropped in a bunch of amendments, 500 pages' worth of them. We pushed back, and they withdrew those. Then they finally introduced more legislation.
We can tell that legislation is really flawed when the government brings in a zillion amendments to its own legislation. It is nuts. We can tell how flawed it is through the process that has been going on for three years. It is not well-designed legislation and will not work in the end.
Last, the Liberals put in an advisory committee. What is the advisory committee for? It would get to define more stuff afterwards. What? It is not in the legislation, other than that it is there. More consultants are going to be hired to figure out how to do an advisory committee.
The root cause of this, in my mind, is legislation that has been passed, Bill C-75, on bail reform. The police, whom I have met with a lot over the years, for rural crime in particular, work really hard to solve crimes and find criminals. However, after the police get the criminals charged and go to all that work, those guys are out in the parking lot in their vehicles before the police can get out of the courthouse. They are out there stealing another car before the police can get out of there.
The bail reform bill the minister announced today does not go anywhere near covering the problems we have with Bill C-75. Violent crime is up 32%.
I want to talk a bit more about the organizations in my riding. One of them is the Brooks Pistol & Smallbore Rifle Club. It had an economic study done. It found that for events in 2021, $337,000 came in from non-residents to this one gun club in my riding. The economic output for that year for one gun club was $1,088,000. That is one club out of the many I listed. Some 46% of people spent more than $500 a person in my community on accommodations and food. This is what those organizations do and this is what the government wants to get rid of.
Sport shooting furthers youth in firearms training, local hunter education, and safety in firearms and handling courses. There is a place where the local police and conservation officers come for their training and recertification, but this legislation would get rid of it. Sport shooting is a huge part of our communities. I listed the different places in my riding where people learn how to properly use sport shooting equipment. What this piece of legislation is going to do is eliminate them.
How about Canada-wide, as that is one constituency? Regarding the impact on sport shooters in Canada, according to a survey conducted in 2018, Canadians spent an estimated $8.5 billion on hunting and sport shooting, with Albertans accounting for more than $1 billion of that number. A survey also found that the recreational firearms industry accounted for 48,000 jobs. Small businesses that have an inventory of things to support sport shooting are now going to lose part of their businesses. Part of their businesses, the government says, is going to be illegal. Sport shooting is done.
Sure, we will grandfather the people who have them. However, what we will have is a bunch of old people like me left in the gun clubs because that is who will be left with the guns. New youth will not be trained, will not know how to use them and will not be involved in competitions. This hurts small businesses in this country.
I want to go back to my quote one more time. The Prime Minister said, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. The problem we have here is that people do not understand sport shooting. In a rural area like mine, guns are tools that families grow up with. They are tools in the ranching business and in the farming business. They are useful tools and needed tools.
This piece of legislation is flawed. It has been three years making its journey to where it is now, and it will not work in the end. It is not going to deal with illegal handguns. The problem we have is gang violence and criminal activity, and this will continue on. This legislation will not stop it. In fact, handguns will become more valuable on the black market, and the criminal element is going to make money off that. This is a flawed piece of legislation and it will not solve crime.
1297 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned bail reform and the need for violent, serious offenders to face stricter scrutiny when released on bail. Today, our government tabled Bill C-48. Many different stakeholders, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, have come forward and are very happy with the proposal put forward. In fact, the president of the Canadian Police Association said this is “common-sense legislation”.
I am wondering if we can count on the member opposite to fast-track this legislation and make sure we have unanimous to pass it in the House so it can go to committee and then off to the Senate?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
