44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague talked about hunting rifles. I have two questions for him.
Here is the real question. According to him, is the current bill about hunting rifles, yes or no? We know that hunting rifles are not affected by this bill.
The second question is the following. When the member alluded to that, he claimed that the Prime Minister said that this bill affected hunting rifles and therefore that appeared to be true. Is the member telling us that the Prime Minister always tells the truth?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is getting late in the day and the humour is getting really good. It is hilarious. I thank him for that second one.
Going back to the first one about rifles, has anyone been to Cuba? It has great cars but only up to about 1958 because it cannot get any newer cars. That is what this legislation does. It says someone cannot buy a new gun after a certain date, so we are going to be left with relics, guns that do not work and guns that are broken. One way to get rid of hunting rifles is by saying people cannot buy a new one.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a lot of criticism of this bill has come from the very groups that have organized for years to ban the guns that they believe, with their evidence, are used to kill people. Groups have formed in Quebec, for instance, that recall the massacre at École Polytechnique, and they are angry with the Liberals for weakening this bill.
In this debate tonight, and on Bill C-21 in general, there are certainly flaws with how the Liberals have delivered this legislation. I will not disagree with that. However, it is becoming a dialogue and debate that is deeper in rhetoric than in fact. I think it is important to note that advocates for gun control are very disappointed with the government.
I wonder what my colleague makes of that in light of his criticisms.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would totally agree with the member. I am totally disappointed with the government as well. We would totally agree on that. I think the government has flawed legislation; it really does. I think it is going to eliminate sport shooting. There is fact in that.
I had a student who went through school and became a world-class fencer. She started when she was in elementary school with a local high school coach. She was in the Olympics four times. She used a sword. That is a weapon. She could learn that when she was in elementary school. We have eliminated the possibility for youth in our country to do sport shooting at the Olympic level. That is a fact, not rhetoric.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today I rise to talk about how the Liberal Party has turned its back on law-abiding firearms owners, while it has given gangs and criminals the green light to continue terrorizing our streets with little worry of any consequences.
Bill C-21 is nothing more than the government's overreach, an attempt by the Liberals to push forward their flawed ideology on firearms ownership. Nobody believes that going after hunters, farmers and sport shooters or legitimate hunting rifles would reduce violent crime in this country. Hunting and farming have been part of the fabric of this country since it was formed. Canadians, especially rural Canadians, enjoy their way of life peacefully and lawfully.
I am an RPAL holder. As a farmer, I understand too well the challenges that are faced by rural Canadians. I have been on the land at night, by myself, and I am vulnerable to any wildlife that may be prowling around in the dark. Being stalked by an animal is real. It is necessary to have a firearm for protection. It is one of the tools that farmers use.
Last November, the Liberals' eleventh-hour amendments to Bill C-21 showed how out of touch they are. Hunters, firearms owners and indigenous Canadians all said in unison that Bill C-21 is an overreach. That sent the Minister of Public Safety into hiding.
Here we are, six months later, with an updated bill. There is no update; it is the same bill with different packaging. Hunting rifles are safe today, but the new Liberal firearms advisory panel could decide that hunting rifles should be banned. Instead of allowing for debate, the Liberal-NDP coalition voted to limit time on this debate and to push this bill through. Sport shooters, hunters and indigenous Canadians are very concerned about the passing of this bill.
How do criminals feel about the bill? In early February, the Liberals voted against, and defeated, Bill C-283, a Conservative private member's bill, which would have imposed tougher sentences for criminals caught smuggling or found in possession of illegal guns.
On February 18, 2021, the government introduced Bill C-22, which would actually reduce the sentence for illegal gun smugglers and remove mandatory minimum sentences for a list of serious offences. These crimes are exactly what the government claims it wants to stop, yet it continues to vote down legislation that would do just that.
Does this sound like a government that is serious about tackling gun crime? Instead of getting tough on gun crime and gun smuggling, the Prime Minister let Canadians know that he is in fact targeting hunters, collectors and sport shooters and their firearms. In a recent CTV interview, he said, “Our focus now is on saying okay, there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”.
Hunters, indigenous Canadians, sport shooters and academics see through this Trojan horse bill. I could easily quote from dozens of stakeholders on how useless this bill would be in tackling gun crime, but I will quote one that encompasses my view and the sentiment of my party. Mark Ryckman from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters said the following:
Firearms are not the disease, particularly in a nation like Canada with robust gun laws. Gun violence is often symptomatic of much bigger societal issues. Taking firearms away from law-abiding Canadians will not reduce the upstream issues that fuel criminal activity and demand for illicit firearms. Therefore, model-based firearm prohibitions will continue to fail as they won’t be able to have a detectable impact on reducing gun violence or enhancing public safety.
Both Canadians and Conservatives see this bill as ineffective. It should not pass, but if it does, Conservatives will repeal this bill once we form government.
It is interesting to note how the NDP is willing to sacrifice rural communities for this flawed bill. The rural NDP MPs all know Grandpa Joe and once spoke on his behalf. The Liberals have succeeded in muzzling the NDP on ideological grounds. The law-abiding hunters, indigenous Canadians and sport shooters in NDP ridings should remember how their voices were silenced by their NDP representatives.
Conservatives would not confiscate their firearms. We know they are not the problem. We will be voting against Bill C-21. We see through the Liberal plan to distract and divide, and we are glad that they do too.
Let us talk about those illegally obtained guns and start with the obvious. Criminals do not buy their guns at a store, and they do not register them. The public safety minister's own statistics prove that 70% of guns used in crime in Canada over the last 10 years were illegally smuggled across the border.
That is why Conservatives believe that the government should invest in police anti-gang and gun units. The Canada Border Services Agency should provide law enforcement with the resources it needs to stop illegal smuggling operations. The minister says that there is more money going to border security, but we see little difference being made. Illegal guns are still coming in.
Frontline officers, investigators and those doing the gritty work of securing our borders and streets are fighting an uphill battle. Surely, funding would be used to employ more staff in that department.
In 2015, when the Liberals took power, we had just under 8,400 frontline workers. In eight years, under the current government, only 25 more have been added. What has grown? The number of middle managers has grown. In 2015, there were 2,000 managerial staff. Today, there are 4,000. One should not misinterpret my words as a critique of middle management; I really appreciate all the work our public servants do for our country and to keep us safe, but when dealing with border security, our frontline staff should be the main priority.
Bill C-21 includes two changes to the Criminal Code that directly impact airsoft. In my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, there are a lot of people who are involved in airsoft. The first change is to the definition of “replica” in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code, which encompasses more than 95% of airsoft blasters. The ambiguity of the bill could increase it to all airsoft. Many pellet guns, realistic paintball markers and even toy guns are being banned.
The economic impact of treating airsoft like firearms is a big one. The airsoft industry contributes $220 million to the Canadian economy. In large portion, these businesses are owned by immigrants and visible minorities. Many airsoft- and paintball-loving constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, along with 60,000 other Canadians, risk losing their beloved hobby. The lack of common sense that the Liberals are showing is insane. How can they make a connection between gun crime, airsoft and pellet guns? If this bill does not scream overreach, then I do not know what does.
When asked why the government is not getting tougher on criminals, the Liberals' default is to say that they implemented a prohibition on “military-style” assault rifles. We know that they mean hunting rifles. First, the term “military-style” assault rifle is of course invented, with no legal definition, but it does sound scary. The reality is that fully automatic weapons have been banned in Canada for years. Therefore, when people talk about AK-47s, they have been banned since the 1970s in Canada. As I have said from the start, these and other weapons like them were never registered. Nobody can own one. They are illegally obtained and will continue to be unless the current government strengthens the sieve that is our border.
There are 230,000 Canadians who have signed a petition saying they do not agree with the government's legislation, and I join them in their opposition. In the last federal election, Conservatives were clear that we would get tough on gangs by giving law enforcement the tools it needs to keep Canadians and our streets safe, cracking down on illegal gun smuggling, and repealing Bill C-71 once and for all.
A Conservative government would also restore mandatory prison times for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime and significantly increase funding and coordination for border security to crack down on illegal firearms smuggling. We would review existing firearms legislation to ensure it focuses strictly on dealing with criminals rather than making life more difficult for law-abiding firearms owners, and we would restore mandatory minimum sentences to keep violent gang members off the street and focus on gangs and criminals by ending automatic bail, revoking parole for gang members, and having new and tougher sentences for the ordering of or involvement in a gang crime.
Bill C-21 does not address the major cause of gun crime in Canada. All MPs really owe it to the victims of violent crime in Canada, past, present and future, to get serious about gun smuggling, gangs and criminals.
A closure motion and one day of debate is all we were afforded to speak to Bill C-21. Canadians have been clear that this bill does not address gun crime, yet the Liberals continue to keep their heads in the sand. My constituents are common-sense people, like many others in this country. Bill C-21 is another proof that the Liberals have lost the plot and are more interested in pushing their own ideology than listening to law-abiding Canadians.
I cannot support this bill.
1615 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have to give the hon. member and her colleagues credit; it is getting late in the evening, but the hysteria and hyperbole continue to mount.
I am looking at a site here that shows 532 different rifles for sale legally in Canada; they are non-restricted. Where do the Conservatives come up with this idea that hunters will not have access to rifles? There are hundreds, probably thousands of models available out there, so why are they pitching this story?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the reality is that we live in a vast country. We live in a country that has predominantly agriculture in our rural areas. We have pastimes in this country. Since the inception of this country, we have used hunting rifles, and the Liberals are coming and targeting law-abiding farmers, hunters, indigenous Canadians and sport shooters. They are targeting things that are pastimes in Canada, which we have done safely for years in this country.
Quite frankly, the bill would do nothing for crime. It would not do anything to protect people on the streets or to remove gangs and criminals from our streets who are smuggling those guns illegally over our border.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I talked about that earlier when I was asking questions and sharing my thoughts on Bill C‑21. This ongoing disinformation campaign is shocking.
I heard the member say that hunters would be affected. Again, that is an improvement the Bloc Québécois brought about thanks to my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who got the notion of hunters removed from the definition. It is no longer there. I also heard the member talk about airsoft guns. That is another improvement to the Bloc Québécois's credit. Let me reiterate the Bloc Québécois's position. We succeeded in getting the clause prohibiting airsoft guns deleted. Airsoft association members will be happy.
In both cases, what she said was completely false. Those things are not in Bill C‑21.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have heard from many constituents in my riding, including many who are in the airsoft industry and many who are hunters and farmers. In fact, James from Chatham said that the bill is “Nothing more than misguided nonsense from the...government. Expensive and stupid.”
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, sure, I have another note from Don from Dover Centre, who said, “Legally owned firearms is not the problem in this country. It is the ghost guns and the illegal guns brought into Canada.”
I have another from Eric, who said, “This bill is nothing more than an attack on legal firearms owners in Canada. It does nothing to make Canadians safer. I am a legal firearms owner who enjoys hunting and sport shooting. I have shared my passion for these activities with my son. He now enjoys them as much as I do. On November 22, the Liberal government made an amendment to Bill 21 and added numerous hunting and sport shooting firearms to the list of now prohibited firearms. Property which was legally obtained and classed as a ‘non restricted firearm’ and is now ‘prohibited’ and has to be surrendered or confiscated?”
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 9:14:47 p.m.
- Watch
Maybe a little bit softer.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. The issue of ghost guns is the primary focus of Bill C-21. The member, like so many Conservatives who have spoken tonight, obviously has not read the bill. This is a major problem when we have members of Parliament who are speaking but have not actually read the legislation that they are speaking on.
Ghost guns are targeted. This is what law enforcement has called for. Conservatives basically blocked that up in weeks of filibuster instead of putting the tools in the hands of law enforcement to crack down on those criminal gangs who use these untraceable ghost guns.
I have two simple questions, and I would love one Conservative to answer them. First, could you name one firearm that is impacted by Bill C-21 since the NDP forced the withdrawal of those amendments? Inconceivably, the Conservatives are moving tonight, at report stage, to eliminate the exemption on handguns that applies to sport shooters, including Olympic sport shooters. Therefore, second, why are the Conservatives moving to eliminate that clause?
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, although I do not need the mansplaining. I think I understand the bill very well, and so do my constituents. Five hundred of them have written to me on my recent mailer.
Here is one from Laura. She said, “As a retired police officer, I strongly object to taking guns from legal gun owners. They are not the problem.” Here is one from Fred, who said, “It is not the hunters and farmers that are killing people, and when they catch the crook they should put them away and not send them back on the street.”
I have talked to numerous police officers and military personnel who have collections and use firearms on their off time to practise and get better at what they need to do in their jobs. This is also hurting our law enforcement officers—
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 9:16:48 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member just misled the House. I would ask him to correct the record. He is well aware that a clerical error was made on the Conservative side. We need his unanimous consent to withdraw that clerical error. He has refused.
I would ask him to stop spreading—
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 9:17:34 p.m.
- Watch
I will remind the hon. member that requests for unanimous consent are not possible at this time.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-21, which has come back to the House from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with a number of amendments, is a bit better than its original version, but it is still far from perfect. Some people are still dissatisfied with its current form, and it does not meet the expectations of certain groups. I would even say that Bill C-21, in its current form, is very disappointing to many people.
Let me be clear. When the bill was introduced in May 2022, it was nowhere near ready.
Let us be frank. The government only introduced it because it was riding the wave of support for gun control in the wake of the shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The proof is that the government had to introduce a package of amendments to its own bill in the fall of 2022. More than 400 pages of amendments were tabled in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security after the study was already completed. These amendments caused discontent and concern among some groups, including hunters and members of indigenous communities.
Let us not forget that these amendments were presented without any explanation, without any briefings and without a press conference. Even the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security seemed unable to explain these amendments.
It is important to remember the facts. These amendments included new measures to take action on ghost guns as well as a definition of prohibited assault-style firearms and a list of prohibited firearms that was over 300 pages long. The Bloc Québécois was opposed to including the list in the Criminal Code because it made it unnecessarily burdensome. The Criminal Code does not reflect in real time the models of firearms and their classification since it needs to be amended. An additional 482 models of weapons would have been prohibited by this list. However, the government could very well have done this through an order in council, as it has done in the past. 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 weapons there. However, the list included both legal and prohibited weapons, depending on the calibre.
It is important to remember that the government did not consult with major hunting associations. Hunters had major concerns following the government's botched announcement of amendments in the fall of 2022. Thanks to the work and interventions of the Bloc Québécois, the confusing list was withdrawn, as was the reference to “hunting rifle” in the definition of assault weapons.
Hunting is a passion for many people in my riding. It is a major economic driver for towns like Senneterre and Chibougamau and northern Quebec. I could go on and on, because my riding covers 800,000 square kilometres.
As a result of our efforts, the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs said that it was satisfied. The Bloc Québécois put pressure on the government to remove that ill-advised mention of hunting rifles from the definition and leave them out of the picture altogether.
I thank my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for her excellent work in committee.
In short, by doing such a bad job of presenting its amendments, the government predictably raised the ire of hunters. Members had to wait several days for a technical briefing to explain the content of the amendments. Since the amendments were tabled at the clause-by-clause stage, the committee had heard from witnesses on things that had nothing to do with assault weapons. The study was complete when the government completely changed the scope of the bill. That was when the Bloc Québécois proposed to reopen the study so that experts could come testify about assault-style weapons.
In the end, as a result of the outcry from the public, indigenous peoples and Liberal and NDP members, the government withdrew its own amendments in early 2023 and went back to the drawing board.
In commenting on Bill C‑21, professor and political scientist Geneviève Tellier said, “Not everyone agrees with this new version of the legislation. Ultimately, it further polarizes the debate between those who are in favour of the right to have firearms and those who say we must limit them because they cause unfortunate victims.”
Professor Tellier said that the government cannot reconcile these two groups' wishes. What is more, she believes that the victims, including the victims of the Polytechnique massacre and the Quebec City shooting, were expecting their concerns to be considered.
She stated, and I quote: Let us not forget that this was also a Liberal election promise. It is a bit of broken promise from the [Prime Minister], in the sense that it does not go as far as he promised during the election. These people expected the government to send a strong message of zero tolerance. Instead, the government seems to be saying that it did what it could, but it cannot do everything it promised. That is why these amendments are leaving many people unsatisfied—
The same political scientist also said the Liberals' approach was dictacted by vote pandering.
It is important to remember that throughout the process, the government refused very reasonable proposals from the Bloc Québécois, proposals that would have produced a better bill. Throughout the process, the government did a poor job and created a tempest of its own making. However, we must admit that, thanks to the Bloc Québécois's work, the bill, which was initially criticized by hunters, gun control groups and airsoft aficionados, was improved and is now satisfactory for most of these groups.
The dangerous slippery slope of Bill C-21 on gun control is simply the result of poor planning and sloppy consultation by the Liberals.
Amendments were reintroduced on May 2, 2023. The government scrapped the list that was causing so much confusion and anger. It also removed the reference to “hunting rifle” from the definition, which was causing a lot of fear among hunters even though, technically, the term was appropriate.
These new government amendments have reassured hunters, but they have also angered gun control groups like PolyRemembers and the Quebec City mosque survivors.
The government's new definition for assault weapons is prospective, meaning that it covers only future firearms. The 482 models of firearms that had been designated by the government as assault weapons in its never-ending list are therefore not banned. The government prefers to defer to an advisory committee, which it will establish.
However, 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.
The Bloc Québécois has called on the government to immediately ban the 470 models that are not used for hunting and to ask the advisory committee about the 12 models that are potentially used for hunting, such as the popular SKS, which has often been used in killings.
During the last election campaign, PolyRemembers backed the Liberal Party as the only party that could improve gun control. The group welcomed Bill C‑21 as an important step forward. The group also welcomed the automatic revocation for domestic abuse, including emotional abuse.
The survivors of the Quebec City mosque shooting also welcomed this bill. Let us recall that the shooter burst into the mosque with an assault weapon that jammed and committed a massacre with a handgun. Later, they learned that the Liberals had promised that they would amend the bill to add a definition prohibiting assault weapons. The Liberals finally backed down by adopting a less robust and prospective definition and not immediately prohibiting the 482 models identified as being assault weapons.
On the other hand, the Bloc Québécois's proposal to immediately prohibit by decree the 470 or so models that are not reasonably used by hunters would address the concerns of these groups. As I said earlier, we are asking the government to have the advisory committee that it wants to re-establish look at the dozen assault weapons that are potentially used for hunting.
We should also note that the bill freezes the acquisition of legal handguns, but we will have to wait many years before all these guns are gone through attrition. Unfortunately, the number of illegal guns will continue to grow.
In closing, I want to say that, even though Bill C‑21 is not perfect, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of it. It is just unfortunate that the government ignored some good suggestions from the Bloc Québécois and broke its election promises. Let us remember the tragic events that have occurred, the lives that have been lost and the families who have lost loved ones because of assault weapons and illegal firearms.
1575 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the spreading of misinformation. I will refer to the most recent Conservative speaker, who indicated, for example, that there is an airsoft ban. Well, there is no airsoft ban. That has been changed, and the Conservatives know that, yet they still talk about an airsoft ban. The member also made reference to ghost guns not being dealt with, citing a specific letter. Again, ghost guns are being dealt with in the legislation.
What we hear consistently from the Conservative Party is misinformation. This is not an attack on the hunters, the farmers and indigenous people. I wonder if the member could provide a comment on what she believes is the damage caused by the spreading of misinformation.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions. I agree that the Conservatives are spreading disinformation.
This was a collaborative effort. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security tried to make this bill into one that will at least keep people safe and prevent the use of weapons used in mass killings. It is important to have a gun control bill.
Hunting rifles are not affected at all. Once again, the Conservatives are spreading disinformation and propaganda.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a similar question. This evening there are Conservatives who clearly never read Bill C‑21, who have no understanding of what it contains. They read the notes that have been drafted, I imagine by the office of the leader, the member for Carleton, without having the slightest understanding of what is in the bill.
The Conservatives keep saying that we need to go after the criminals but we know that ghost guns are an important part of the new version of Bill C‑21. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois worked hard on this new version.
For people watching the debate this evening, how does it feel to see a political party, in other words the Conservative Party, clearly have no knowledge of what we are discussing?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
