44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
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
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives did not read Bill C‑21. They are unaware of what it contains. I am certain that, even in committee, they were not listening to what the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had to say about Bill C‑21.
I just want to remind the Conservative Party that the important thing is that hunting rifles are not affected by the ban.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for a very honest speech. She recognized the work done in committee. There were amendments concerning airsoft guns, and other amendments for which we found solutions.
I now feel at ease with Bill C‑21. We all understand that there were a few versions and a few drafts. The problems with the first version have now been fixed, as my colleague mentioned.
Would she have the time to lay out the facts?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is indeed very important to talk about what the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security did to improve this bill. As I was saying, we are getting rid of assault weapons and illegal firearms.
The bill is not perfect, but I am sure that it will be improved. It is important to pass this bill and it is important to point out that hunting rifles are not included in Bill C‑21.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening at this relatively late hour to speak to this bill.
I just want to mention, before I start, that, earlier this evening, I had a chance to spend some time with Persian Gulf War veterans. We were at an event, the airing of a new film on the Canadian involvement in the Persian Gulf War. These veterans are fighting the government for the classification of wartime service, and I think it is about time that we classify them as having wartime service, and even our Afghanistan veterans, as well. It was a very powerful evening, and I am very glad to have been there in support of our veterans.
As we sit here to discuss report stage amendments on Bill C-21, let us not get lost on the history of how we got to this point. Sadly, the events in Nova Scotia and the mass killing out there really led to a political response by the government. It saw an opportunity. It issued an order in council on May 1, 2020, that effectively banned thousands and thousands of what were legal firearms in the country. It was so rushed, in fact, to propose the order in council, that they banned the cannon at Stanley Park that fires ceremoniously at nine o'clock every evening as part of this order in council ban.
As we moved forward, the government was indicating that it was going to push a gun ban in this country, effectively an attack on law-abiding firearms owners. It was about a year ago that we saw the iteration of Bill C-21 that was tabled as legislation, and immediately, the reaction across the country was one of shock at the fact that they included an additional thousands more of what were legal firearms. They proposed a handgun ban as well if we will recall.
That sent a ripple effect right across the country because they were attacking not only law-abiding firearms owners, but also hunters and indigenous people. Basically, hundreds of years of history in this country were being attacked by the Liberal government, aided and abetted by their partners in the NDP, but a funny thing happened with the NDP. When the legislation was proposed, its members were joyous about the fact that the government had proposed such a sweeping ban of firearms against law-abiding firearms owners, until they realized just what an impact this was going to have, a disproportionate impact, on rural Canadians. Then, all of a sudden, they started backing up.
They said whoa, and that this piece of legislation is going way too far, because they saw that there was a political threat in those rural and remote ridings where rural Canadians and indigenous Canadians use guns to hunt, feed themselves and participate in a long-standing cultural heritage in this country, not to mention to protect themselves in those rural and remote areas.
All of a sudden, here we were, revisiting this legislation. It is clear that the Liberal government and the public safety minister did not think of the implications of this and the impact it would have on hunters and indigenous people, and they were backtracking. They said whoa, they were not going to introduce this iteration. They were going to pull back on this and go back into consultation with Canadians to try to figure out how to get this right.
The reason why they were in this place was because they made a political calculation, because law-abiding firearms owners in this country have always been an easy target, pardon the pun, for Liberal and leftist-leaning governments. They are the target. They are not worried about going after gangs, guns and illegal smuggling. That is the hard work. The easy work is to go after the low-hanging fruit, and that is law-abiding firearms owners.
Canada has the most strict regime of registration and training of firearms owners anywhere in the world. I do not have an RPAL. I do not own a firearm. I have fired one firearm in my life, at the Barrie Gun Club, in a controlled environment, so I have no skin in the game.
What I believe in is the right of individuals in this country, because of our culture and our heritage, because of our laws and because of the training, to have the right to own firearms and use them responsibly. What I do not agree with are gangs, illegal smuggling and those guns that are coming in across the border, which are easily obtained by gangs in the use of criminal activity. We have seen an increase in gang-related activity, and we have seen an increase in gun-related activity, so instead of going after the low-hanging fruit, instead of going after the law-abiding firearms owners, they are not doing what they need to do as far as guns and gangs.
One only has to follow the Toronto Police Service operations twitter feed to understand the depth of the problem in Toronto, not to mention there is a problem in Vancouver and Montreal as well. It is illegal guns. It is gangs and gang-related activity that are showing the most increases in illegal gun activity in this country. It is not law-abiding firearms owners.
I had the opportunity to go to the Moncton Fish and Game Association, as I did some stakeholder engagement on this issue, when we were at the height of it. The government at that time was rethinking its position. There was a policy proposal. Colleagues may recall in 2017 the then minister of public safety was going around the country because they were thinking about implementing additional firearms restrictions.
I had an opportunity to speak to members of the the Moncton Fish and Game Association, who are salt-of-the-earth guys, responsible firearms owners and proud Canadians. They submitted a document to the then minister of public safety that should have served as a template for any discussion. It was called a discussion paper, but it should have served as a template for what the discussion was to be about. They talked about the “long history of firearms control in this country.” The document said, “1892 saw the first Criminal Code controls with a permit system for small arms; 1934 saw the requirement for all handguns to be registered with police with RCMP issuing registration certificates”.
The discussion paper that was submitted to the then minister of public safety could have and should have been used as a template. It went on:
There is no clear definition as to what Canada considers to be an “assault weapon” or “assault rifle”. The outdated US Dept of Justice definition (1994-2004) is so broad that a typical rabbit hunting rifle such as the semi-automatic Marlin 60 with a tube magazine that can hold 15 rounds of 22LR ammunition might be construed as an assault weapon as might the Ruger 10/22.
There have been some amendments, clearly, as we have dealt with this to not classify some of these weapons, but had these stakeholders been listened to, had there been a thorough discussion, I think the then minister of public safety would have really understood just the level and the depth of responsible firearms ownership in this country and how they want to be part of the solution to the gun and gang problem.
The discussion paper goes on. One part that stood out for me, section 26, stated;
Unfortunately, with every “mass shooting” and even for single victim incidents, there is an immediate reaction by the media and especially politicians to immediately blame the object for the actions that were perpetrated. It is easy for the Mayor of Toronto, Toronto Council or Montreal City Council to blame the object and call for a gun ban, but it takes political courage to identify the underlying social issues and address realistic solutions that protect people from harm by addressing the root causes of violence. The issue is not “what” was used in the incident but rather “why” the event happened, “what” was the reason, “how” was the firearm obtained and “how” could it have been prevented? It is easy to blame the gun and ignore the underlying and difficult to address societal or mental health factors.
This piece of legislation is flawed in many ways. It still continues to attack law-abiding firearms owners. There are other concerns that I will address in questions and comments.
1450 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is wrong to make the assertion he is alleging that this gun registration, or attack on guns, would affect our hunters, farmers and indigenous people. It is just wrong to say that those guns are going to be taken away. The information the Conservatives are putting out there is definitely misleading, and I am being kind in my wording.
There are some benefits within the legislation. I have made reference to one, and I will continue to do so. Ghost guns are a serious issue across Canada. This is a wonderful step forward in dealing with that issue. Could the member clearly indicate what parts of the legislation he does support, if any at all.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
