44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not believe it is appropriate for a member of the chamber to give such a verbal attack on another member. All members in the House are hon. members, and I do request that the member reflect on what he said, do the honourable thing and apologize.
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, the Conservatives are obviously losing the debate. They are engaging in personal insults. That member, as a former House leader, knows very well that he needs to retract and apologize.
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to the same point of order, a lot of things have happened in the House over the last couple of hours. One thing that has proven to be true is that the member did not tell the truth about the amendment 43. It was supposed to be taken back, so if he wants to be called an hon. member, he should act that way.
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 9:46:26 p.m.
- Watch
Some of that is a point of debate, but definitely some of it is a personal attack on the hon. member. The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil knows full well, because he was a House leader at one point, that calling somebody dishonourable is not acceptable. Therefore, I would ask him to retract his comments.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am just stating my experience. I will retract it.
I have sat in this debate tonight frustrated, and not because of the points we are making but because of the assertion that somehow Conservatives are spreading misinformation and disinformation. I will say this again: What we are doing is reflecting the words of our constituents, and I do that tonight as the member for Barrie—Innisfil.
I will say in all honesty that 95% of the people who have reached to me are opposed to Bill C-21, the amendments that have been made and the work the government, aided and abetted by the NDP, is doing.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was grateful that the member for Barrie—Innisfil made the claim that Canada had the toughest gun laws in the world, because I decided to look it up. I do not think he was trying to mislead the House. I think he made that assumption, but it turns out Canada is not among the top 10 countries for tough gun laws. Japan is first, followed by South Korea, the Netherlands, Ireland, the U.K. and Israel. I think it might be interesting to note that we rate way better than the United States, but not in the top 10.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe I said it was one of the top licensing regimes in the world, or whatever it was I said. I do not project that we have the best, but we are certainly up there when it comes to comparables in other countries. I think the record will show that.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 9:48:36 p.m.
- Watch
Before we continue, I just want to remind members of something. I know this is a topic of discussion that can be very passionate. I just want to remind members to be very respectful, not to speak when others are speaking and not to try to answer questions when it is not time for them to answer questions or make comments.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand tonight and speak to the debate on Bill C-21, discussing firearms in this nation of ours, Canada. I am not simply standing here as a Conservative member of Parliament. I do not want to improperly represent anything or anybody, because the people I am representing here tonight are amazing people. They are not just people from my riding; they are people from right across this country who see this legislation as something nefarious, quite honestly.
I look at the whole process that the government, the NDP-Liberal coalition, has gone through in contortions of creating an order in council that banned certain firearms, then moving to handguns and then bringing in amendments to add in a huge plethora of other firearms to that list. Then it reneged on that and took the list away, and now it just has a definition. Whoever made that list up for the government had fun doing it, because it is clear they really did not understand the breadth of firearms on that list and how ridiculous it is that so many of them were even there.
When I am speaking here tonight, I am speaking on behalf of people across this country who truly understand firearms and know exactly what this legislation is. I get the impression that Liberals are talking about firearms owners, hunters, farmers and even indigenous people as those who do not really know what is going on here, and they are the ones who are speaking out.
As with so many issues in this House, we are standing on this side of the floor and I firmly believe we are the ones who are representing the majority of Canadians in this place, who see legislation brought forward that says one thing but suddenly there are all these additional amendments, or it is a bill brought in with nothing and everything needs to be added in after they have made their speeches about what it is.
It is very clear that what we have here is a government and its partner turning themselves into pretzels trying to figure out how to carry on with what they truly want to do. I can say very confidently that I hear over and over again that this emperor has no clothes. Canadians are seeing through what their intentions are. It is so clear because common sense does not exist in the majority of this legislation.
What we are supposedly talking about here is public safety and protecting Canadians, yet as the government is introducing this legislation and other pieces, crime in Canada has grown exponentially. There is no clear rational reason to focus on hunters, farmers and indigenous people who use firearms responsibly, safely and legally as a means of dealing with the violence we are facing, which is growing in our nation.
It is really clear that this legislation would not impact the important things in regard to violence in our country. Catch-and-release policies of the government have been brutal, where Canadians have become victims because it has been so poorly laid out. Now all of a sudden Liberals will say they are fixing this and fixing that. My word, it never should have gotten to where it needs to be fixed to this extent eight years into the government's mandate. Violent crime has increased 32%. Gang-related murders have doubled. People have been killed across this country in all kinds of scenarios in larger numbers, with no relation to the person who was attacking them in any way.
It seems the only focus of the legislation before us is on the law-abiding people in Canada, so that is a question that comes to me all the time, not just from people in my riding, but quite honestly from rural ridings right across the country. We know that on that side of the floor there are Liberal members who have barely won their ridings in rural Canada. We pit east against west, but rural Canada is rural Canada, and firearms owned by respectable, honest Canadians, rurally, should not even be considered by the government in trying to deal with the issues it has with growing violence in this country. It is the Liberals' poor mandates and it is their poor legislation that are opening up crime more and more in our country.
The new Liberal definition is exactly the same as the old one. It is simply under a new look and a new package, because that definition still describes many of the firearms that are used legally, that are used properly and that are not part of the dynamics of violence in our country. We do not support confiscating the firearms of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people, and we are on the right side of the Canadian public on this issue.
No one believes that going after hunters and legitimate hunting rifles would reduce violent crime across this country. This is part of the Liberals' plan to distract and divide Canadians, and we refuse to be divided on this issue. Right across the nation, the majority of Canadians agree that this emperor has no clothes. There is some reason behind this mandate that the Liberals want to press onto Canadians to remove the freedoms we have in this country to be law-abiding firearms owners.
The Liberals are making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5. How in the world does that make sense next to removing firearms from law-abiding Canadians? The Liberals have made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75, and they are failing to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border. I would suggest that they focus their energies on doing what would make the big difference on violence in this country, because as we have heard, and it is true, in cases where a firearm is used illegally and violently, it is about the person holding that firearm.
Maybe we need to do more research on who commits these crimes and why we let them out of jail over and over again to the point that, as we heard earlier today, the majority of crimes in our large cities, and New York City was actually mentioned as well, are committed by repeat offenders who get out and do it again, and then get out and do it again. The focus here is on law-abiding firearms owners: hunters, farmers and indigenous people. We support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.
I am going to switch to some comments where there is unity in this country on firearms. I am going to quote Vice-Chief Heather Bear from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations. She said:
When you go out to hunt, you're not just hunting. You're teaching your child courage and you're bonding. You are passing on protocols, ceremonial protocols, of how to look after your kill. There are the rites of passage, the reverence to the animal and the tobacco. Along with that tool come many teachings and also matters of safety. When you take a gun away, you take away the opportunity for that oral tradition to happen.
I am just going to quote something I said at the Parkland Outdoor Show & Expo in Yorkton, the largest outdoor show in Canada, where the focus is on outdoor activities. I said, “The Parkland Outdoor Show & Expo champions our great outdoors heritage by celebrating nature, environment, hunting, angling, trapping, hiking, camping and more. What impacted me the most as I reflected on my experiences year after year with this event is the visible passion and joy I see for those who spend quality time with family and friends while they are teaching skills, respect and how to deeply enjoy the great outdoors to the next generation.”
“On behalf of the federal Government of Canada,” I said, “and as the member of Parliament for Yorkton—Melville, serving His Majesty's Official Opposition, with an amazing group of people, under the servant leadership of the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I thank them for enjoying, promoting and valuing Canada's natural beauty, our heritage and outdoor traditions— ”
1402 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 9:59:25 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talked about the support base. Leger did a poll on the issue of gun control and found that 84% of Canadians believe that the government is on the right track in dealing with the issue of gun control.
The final report from the Mass Casualty Commission, investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead, made several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada's gun laws. In essence, the report calls for stricter gun laws. It is significant.
I am wondering if the member could be a little clearer in terms of specifically what it is in the legislation that she opposes. It is not fair to say that we are taking guns from hunters, indigenous people or farmers. That is just not true. The member is trying to give the impression that hunters and so forth are not going to have guns as a result of the passage of this legislation.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the question.
The truth of the matter is the focus of the Liberal government needs to be on the people who commit violence with firearms.
Hunters, farmers and indigenous people using their firearms in the way that I described here today have nothing to do with the violence in Canada. If the Liberals want to deal with ghost guns, it is a great idea but they do not have to take away the opportunity for the majority of Canadians who want to have a firearm to use them.
Mark Ryckman, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters said, “Firearms are not the disease, particularly in a nation like Canada with robust gun laws.”
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I like the member. I know she would not do what other Conservatives have done tonight, which is, when asked very simple questions, have a temper tantrum and explode with insults rather than answering some basic questions.
The first, of course, is on the provisions for ghost guns that mean that Bill C-21, reformulated because the NDP pushed for that, actually tackles criminals. The member is aware of that.
Second, will the member admit that amendments G-4 and G-46, which were the two amendments that she spent the most time on in her speech, were actually withdrawn? They are not relevant to this debate.
Third, there is the issue of the Conservatives moving to end the exemption for handguns for sport shooters, particularly those who are involved in the Olympics. It is bizarre and strange. How do the Conservatives justify having tabled that amendment?
Those are three questions Canadians are asking. I hope the member answers them, because other Conservatives have been unable to.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 10:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind members not to yell while others have the floor.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Liberals and their NDP partners in crime have succeeded in shutting down debate on Bill C-21, a bill that would not prevent a single drug dealer or a gang member from obtaining an illegal gun, because it is focused entirely on law-abiding Canadians.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I asked three questions. The member did not answer any of them.
I understand that her leader's office has given her packaged talking points that date back to last November, but the issues were ghost guns, the amendments that were withdrawn, she cannot name a single firearm that there is a consequence to as a result of this legislation, and the move by the Conservatives to end the exemption of handguns for sport shooters.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member knows that the Conservatives asked for unanimous consent, there is an email right here that I am willing to table if the hon. member would let me—
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 10:04:03 p.m.
- Watch
Order. The hon. member cannot point to something he may be holding and make reference to it. This seems to be a point of debate more than anything else. I am going to ask the hon. member to finish up his question so that I could get the answer.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are badly losing the debate tonight and that is why their tempers are flaring. They should just start to answer simple questions that are being addressed to them. Canadians seek answers.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the member that I will not take any of that kind of treatment. I make my decisions about what I am going to say on this floor. They talk about us. The vitriol in this House that is sent in this direction over and over again is despicable. I have no desire to answer the member's questions because there is no purpose to them.
We know there is a new Liberal firearms advisory panel being created. I would not be surprised if it has already been created, and that is why Canadians have no confidence in any decisions made by the government.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
