44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
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
- May/16/23 10:05:22 p.m.
- Watch
Again I want to remind members to be respectful during the debate. It is not proper to personalize it, so members need to focus specifically on the bill itself.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, 32% is the Liberal government's record after eight years in power. Violent crime in Canada has increased by 32% since the election of this Prime Minister and his Liberal ideology of freeing criminals as quickly as possible, allowing them to be released more quickly and serve their sentences in their living rooms.
After eight years of this Liberal government, gang-related homicides have doubled. In 2019, the Liberal government saw fit to pass Bill C‑5, which I will refer to in a moment, that makes the bail process easier. As a direct result of that legislation, more and more criminals are ending up at home rather than in prison. Let us remember this number: a 32% increase in violent crime.
Today we are discussing the Liberal government's solution to this violence. I want to ask my colleagues to use their imagination. Imagine the kind of scenario that resulted in the Liberal Party making a recommendation such as this and introducing a bill such as this. Imagine the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety meeting in a coffee shop, probably downtown in some major Canadian city, wondering how to combat gun crime on the streets. The Minister of Justice, seeing the number of illegal guns coming into the country, tells the Minister of Public Safety that the government cannot ban illegal guns because they are already illegal. The Minister of Public Safety adds that weapons that enter illegally at the borders are not easy to seize, because criminals have their ways, obviously. The Minister of Justice says he wants nothing to do with threatening armed citizens who commit violent crimes with longer prison sentences. The Prime Minister said not to be too tough on criminals.
It was in that coffee shop that the Minister of Public Safety came up with this brilliant idea. He knows who owns firearms and he even knows where to find them. They have licences. They took courses, and they have a lot of guns. The Minister of Justice was starting to question all of this, but he already saw a good opportunity to divert attention from his inability to put an end to violence in the streets, violence that has made families in too many of our cities afraid. He asked where those guns can be found. The Minister of Public Safety proudly responded that they can be found in all regions of Canada, on farms, in the north and in indigenous communities. They could seize thousands of weapons. The Minister of Justice felt like saying that those guns are not used to commit crimes, but he did not. He preferred to remain silent. Why let facts get in the way of a great Liberal initiative?
In this story, that is how Bill C‑21 was born, and quite frankly, I do not see any other way it could have happened, since the Liberals are so far off the mark. This bill had just one objective: to make the Liberal government look good. Unfortunately, it was to the detriment of law-abiding gun owners and sport shooters.
I listened to several speeches today. I should point out that this bill was supported by the Bloc Québécois, who left out a part of the story in everything it was saying today. When the Liberal amendment that would have made hunting rifles and sport shooter firearms illegal, the Bloc member from Rivière-du-Nord said in committee that the definition contained in amendment G4 almost feels like the Bloc Québécois wrote it. It meets our expectations.
I do not often quote members of the Bloc Québécois, but when it is time to set the record straight, I like to set the record straight. That truly is what the member for Rivière-du-Nord said. It is a fact.
Then they strut their stuff and claim that they changed things, but when we see that from the outset they supported a bill that would ban firearms used in every region of Canada and did not react when they realized that people were reacting in their own region, there is a problem. Most of all, there is a lack of credibility.
We are here after hours of debate to ask the government to see the light. Although they did backtrack, which was rather strategic and the result of the strong opposition from the Conservatives, hunters and residents of rural areas in Canada, no one has any illusions about the Liberals' intent to go after honest people who are just engaging in a centuries-long tradition.
We expect that, as a result of these measures, most of the firearms targeted by the Liberal amendments at the end of last year, including hunting rifles, will again be subject to prohibitions in the future, end of story. We are saying this because we have lost confidence in the Liberal government. Unfortunately, I deplore the naivety of the Bloc Québécois, who seems to be defending the government today. It seems to want to have faith in the Liberal government once again.
I must admit that I am not surprised by the position of the NDP, the Liberal government's coalition partner. It cannot be denied that the NDP also reacted to public opinion. It too had openly supported Bill C‑21, its first iteration and the amendments.
Why do I not trust the Liberals? It is not because I am a Conservative. It is not because I listened to the hunters. It is because the Prime Minister himself, the member for Papineau, was very clear when when he said, “our focus now is on saying...yes...we're going to have to take [these rifles] 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 going to great effort to confiscate the hunting rifles of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people.
Let me be clear. The new definition, or the supposed new definition, is really the same as the old one. Commonly used hunting rifles, which were targeted by the Liberals in the fall, will likely be added to the ban by the new Liberal firearms advisory committee. I am sure a bunch of very independent people will also be appointed to this committee. I would not be surprised to see a Trudeau Foundation executive on this committee.
I have had the opportunity to speak with hunters in the Mégantic—L'Érable area. That is why I am here today. They are not reassured by the government's changes to Bill C‑21, nor by the amendments. Most of all, they are hurt that they are being used by the Liberal government for political purposes. They have witnessed the increase in violent crime in Montreal, as we all have. They are shocked that they have been targeted by the government as criminals. These people are careful, trained, and most importantly, they take gun safety very seriously.
The Liberal government has the wrong target in its crosshairs. Hunters, sport shooters and farmers are paying the price. No one believes the Liberal government anymore.
That being said, these people are realists. They are wiser. I want to quote Martin Bourget from Aventure Chasse Pêche, with whom I had the pleasure of speaking during a big interview on Bill C‑21. He said, and I quote, “Legitimate gun owners in Canada are deeply puzzled about the very legitimacy of the process set out in Bill C‑21 and the enforcement of these measures. They are asking for nothing less than a study of the bill's true impact on the safety of Canadians and on traditional hunting and harvesting, and sport shooting.”
Does that sound extreme? No, not at all. It is reasonable. People want to know whether Bill C‑21 will really bring down the crime rate on the streets of big cities and across the country.
In closing, I would like to remind members that violent crime in Canada is up 32%. That is the Liberal government's track record over the past eight years. That is the Liberals' grade, and it is not even a passing grade. Unfortunately, because of what they have done in the past, we do not have any confidence in them moving forward.
1426 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, between 2020 and 2021, there was a 5% decrease across the country in gun crime. The member can say whatever he likes, but he cannot change that particular fact.
I would remind the member opposite that last year, through border controls, over 1,200 guns and over 73,000 weapons were confiscated at the border. However, as we bring forward legislation and present budgets to deal with the issue of public safety, the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation.
Can the member indicate how many guns were confiscated at the border while Stephen Harper was the prime minister?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since the Harper government was in power, it is 32%. That is the figure that the member for Winnipeg North should remember.
There has been a 32% increase in violent crime in Canada despite everything the Liberals have done. Actually, I should say because of everything they have done, such as the changes in Bill C-5 concerning parole and violent offenders serving their sentences at home in their living rooms. That is the Liberal government's record after eight years.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
