44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I guess I would like the hon. member to comment on the fact that back in the Stephen Harper days the Conservatives cut the CBSA by, I heard, up to 1,000 people. The Liberals have restored that and added to it.
To the member's knowledge, would the Conservatives, if they formed government, go back and cut the CBSA again?
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am thankful to get a question from someone other than the member for Winnipeg North today. I will point out that even the question itself highlights the Liberal incompetence on this issue, because what the member praises is basically an increase in spending that corresponds to a 32% increase in the negative effects and violent crime, despite the Liberals' spending and spending. I guarantee members that the answer next year, or whenever the next budget comes, is going to be more Liberal spending with worse results for Canadians.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I like the member. We remember the CBSA cuts from the Harper regime. We also remember the Harper regime ending the crime prevention centres across the country, which effectively did a very effective job in reducing the crime rate before the crimes even happened. As we know, for every dollar invested in crime prevention, we save six dollars in policing costs, court costs and prison costs. It made good sense, and the Harper regime absolutely ended it. Unfortunately, the Liberals have not revived the crime prevention centres that were so effective in fighting crime.
However, the point I want to come back to is on Bill C-21. The focus of Bill C-21 now, because of NDP pressure, is on ghost guns used by criminals and criminal gangs across the country. We have seen an exponential increase in some parts of the country, including a tenfold increase in the use of untraceable ghost guns in the region of the Lower Mainland, so I do not understand why Conservatives have been blocking for weeks and weeks through filibusters the adoption of these important measures law enforcement is calling for.
Can the member explain why Conservatives blocked a bill that would take action against criminals and against criminal gangs and their use of ghost guns?
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if the hon. member wants to deal with that one specific issue, he can use his clout in his partnership with the Liberals and move that as a stand-alone bill that we can have a stand-alone conversation on, but the member talks about crimes being stopped from being committed before they are committed. Do members know what would go a long way toward that? It is keeping repeat offenders in jail. Do members know what else would go a long way toward that? It is not giving bail to violent repeat offenders.
That is not the conversation we are having right now, unfortunately. This is a conversation that targets firearms owners who are hunters, farmers, sport shooters and collectors and would do absolutely nothing to reduce crime in this country.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my friend, colleague and neighbour from the class of 2006, the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, and I have been here the same amount of time. A lot has been said, and he would feel this too, representing some of the constituents I used to represent, about the divisiveness that is happening in this country. The one thing that the government has managed to unite this country on is that all 10 premiers had to write a letter to the justice minister asking for bail reform.
The issue is violent crime. Can my colleague please expand on the only thing the government seems to have united the country on, which is how lousy it is at keeping Canadians safe?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is an issue that comes up time and again at my constituent round tables. I have four of them again next week, so I am looking forward to seeing my constituents and hearing more about what we can do if we form government after the next election. One of the things I assure members would be a top priority for our Conservative government if we form government would be to seriously tackle criminal justice issues in this country, because it has been eight long years that they have been ignored.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be able to rise in this House once again to speak on behalf of the great people from southwest Saskatchewan, which is obviously one of the largest rural areas in the entire country.
It is really important to remember that we talk about the differences throughout the country. There are rural areas all across Canada. However, it seems that when we talk about this particular issue there are a lot of urban versus rural perspectives. It is important that we bring our own unique perspectives, because somebody from urban Canada would have a different perspective from somebody from rural Canada.
The job of the government is to build trust with people from both portions of society, not to pick one side or the other but to deal with both aspects of it. All my colleagues here on the opposition side represent both urban and rural ridings, and we do a fantastic job of making sure that we represent both perspectives as we talk about this topic tonight.
One thing I want to do right off the top is really delve into what it is like growing up in rural Saskatchewan. At times the government forgets just exactly what that is like. If one was to talk to many of the rural members here or go back home and talk to a lot of the people who live in a lot of the small towns and even in some of the cities in Saskatchewan, and ask them what was one of their favourite gifts they ever got for Christmas as a youngster, one of the top items would be a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun.
It was a beautiful thing, a lever-action BB gun. I remember getting one when I was six or seven years old. I spent countless hours out in the backyard of our farm shooting pop cans or some birds in the yard, things like that, and learning the proper mechanics of how to properly handle and properly store a firearm, obviously one that was safe for a young person to handle. Many people all across this country do that.
As I grew older, of course, I moved to a .22 and started to see some larger calibres. The most important part was when I was 12 years old, the age I was able to go and get my hunter safety course. It is a course of several meetings in the evenings. We took it at one of the schools in one of the small towns. That was where we went through the very important elements of, again, proper handling, proper usage, proper storage and transportation of firearms, the different classes of firearms, the different species that people were allowed to hunt in Canada, species that one has to be licensed to hunt, and species that could be hunted in open season. That was a very formative and important part of culture in rural Canada. It is almost like a rite of passage of sorts.
Later on in life, as regulations advanced and changed, we went from having things like a firearms licence to having a possession and acquisition licence. It is extremely important that we talk about that process as we go through this debate here tonight.
If all we heard was what the Liberals and the NDP wanted to talk about, they would have us believing that everybody has unfettered access to all kinds of firearms that could do all kinds of different things. The reality could not be any further from that.
The reality is that we do have a very stringent, legal and regulatory system that people have to abide by if they want to be able to acquire, possess and transport firearms. It is a very good system. It is a long process to go through, but I do think it is very fair. When we look at the way our system is, it is a privilege to be able to have a firearm in this country. It is important that we do have a strong but fair legal system around that.
Nobody here is objecting to the system that we have in place, because, for the most part, it is a good system. It is important for people who do not have firearms or people who are not necessarily interested in firearms but might be interested in the debate here tonight to know and understand that we do have a very robust and comprehensive legal system around firearms.
Let us get to the next part of the debate tonight. One of the fundamental things that we always have to talk about in the House of Commons is trust. Does the government trust the people? Do people trust the government? What has the government done to earn people's trust when we talk about firearms?
Well, we know the Liberals had the massive debacle with the long gun registry. In the 2019 election, one of the their next failed ideas was to have a big, expensive buyback program. They said the buyback program was going to cost between $400 million and $600 million. Given that the long gun registry program, which was only supposed to cost $1 million or $1.5 million, turned into an over $1-billion program, people have a right to be skeptical of them.
In 2019, the Liberals rolled out another plan for a buyback program for all the types of guns the Liberals do not like. However, lo and behold, nobody out there was interested in participating in this program and was willing to administer it, so the government had to back away from it. Fast-forward to 2021, and that is where we see the original proposal of Bill C-21.
It is important to note that the original part of it was about having a buyback program for barred firearms. The Liberals were maybe going to allow municipalities to ban handguns, and they were going to supposedly increase criminal penalties for gun smuggling and trafficking. There have been various legislative attempts by the government around sentencing. That is an issue for another time. I may be able to get to it tonight, but we shall see.
We are still waiting for details of the buyback program from that original announcement in 2021. The Liberals floated a few ideas out there. There were a few different things that happened, but ultimately nothing really came of it. We are currently going through the budget again, and there is still no allocation in the federal budget for a buyback program, yet that was part of the original intent of Bill C-21.
What we saw after the budget was announced is that the Liberals came up with a bit of a buyback program, but it is not for firearms that have already been lawfully acquired by citizens of Canada. Instead, they are looking at purchasing firearms back from dealers. Supposedly it will cost $700,000. We are still waiting to see how that program is going to be implemented and what it is going to look like. It will most likely have to do with the list of firearms that will come through Bill C-21.
Again, we have talked about trust. What has the government done to earn the trust of Canadians? As we look at the way Bill C-21 has unfolded not only before the House but also in committee, we have Liberals dropping big amendments with big comprehensive packages of firearms that are going to be banned, and all different kinds of styles.
That is another thing the Liberals have done. They have talked about this made-up term “assault-style firearm”. It is important to note one of the key terms in there, the word “style”. Based on what the Liberals described, it is about the way a firearm might look. That leads to the issue at hand: Do people trust the government with whether or not it is going to ban hunting rifles? We hear about that a lot, and it has been brought up a lot in this debate tonight.
Based on the way the Liberals have described the “assault” style, it could be a gun with a black stock on it or a camo pack on it, and it looks like it could be an assault-style gun. However, the Liberals are not concerned about the function of it. It could be a hunting rifle. It may fit perfectly within the parameters of what is acceptable as a hunting rifle. The Liberals have sowed a lot of fear and distrust in people who like to go out and hunt as part of their culture and way of life, and simply because of the colour of a gun, they may be looking at banning it.
The Liberals have created this committee program that is going to go ahead with a fixed date. It will decide whether a firearm should be banned or not. The bill we are debating tonight is going to set a date and it will be everything after that. That is where the problem lies.
When the Liberals use made-up terms like “assault-style firearm”, it leaves the door open to a vague description that does not have anything to do with the reality of how a firearm functions but is rather about how it looks. Then we will have a committee, which will obviously be hand-picked by the Liberals, with people who will not necessarily be acting in the best interests of these lawful Canadians, who are among the most vetted citizens in this country.
The Conservatives want to see a fact-based approach that takes into consideration people from rural Canada and urban Canada and that looks at what our professionals and experts are actually saying, not just what a bunch of activists are saying.
1656 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that a number of members have talked about border controls. I have referred to the fact that, last year alone, over 1,200 guns were confiscated at the border. We have invested in border controls.
I have posed this question to other members and would like to see if the member can respond to it. Is he aware of any guns that were confiscated, any sense of the number, while Stephen Harper was prime minister, because he did cut back on that?
With respect to the bill itself, concerns have been raised not just by the Liberal Party but by all opposition parties regarding the Conservative Party's desire to spread misinformation in order to achieve fundraising goals. I would like the member's thoughts on that.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when the Liberals are in trouble, they like to refer to Stephen Harper rather than talk about the issue at hand. The facts on the ground and the reality from 10 years ago are different than they are today. Ten years ago, violent crime was down 20%. Despite all the money the Liberals have spent, violent crime is up 32%, but even worse, gang-related crime is up 98%. All this comes from the Statistics Canada website, a government website that has that information. That is extremely important.
We talk about the illegal guns coming across the borders and the ones being used in the commission of crimes, and the vast majority of them are falling into the hands of gang members, who are not law-abiding citizens. They are not legally and lawfully obtaining these firearms. We want the Liberals to continue to focus on illegally obtained firearms, but we are not seeing that approach when we talk about Bill C-21.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's calm demeanour tonight. That contrasts with some of his Conservative colleagues, who have simply been losing it throughout the debate this evening.
The point the member raises is very clearly contradicted by the facts. Amendments G-4 and G-46 have been withdrawn, so the concerns he raises about the bill's impacts on existing firearms are non-existent. Those amendments have been withdrawn. No Conservative tonight has been able to point to a single firearm that is impacted by Bill C-21.
On the issue around criminality and criminal gangs, I would agree with the member that we need to take action. What law enforcement has been calling for is action against ghost guns, which are being used by criminal gangs and criminals across the country, although perhaps not in his region. However, in my region, there has been a tenfold increase, and the Conservatives have been steadfastly blocking legislation that deals with ghost guns and provides support for law enforcement.
Why would they filibuster a bill that makes a difference in combatting crime?
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what is important is that when we are trying to focus on and deal with a very serious issue such as ghost guns, it is being tied in with something else. That is the problem. If we want to focus solely on ghost guns, then let us focus solely on ghost guns, but that is not what is happening here.
As for current firearms, I mentioned in my speech that it is not necessarily about what is going to be happening today; it is what is going to be happening after the set date the Liberals are proposing for this new committee to come in. That is the opportunity and the window for hunting rifles and already lawfully and legally obtained firearms to be seized by the government. That is what we are concerned about. We do not know who the Liberals are going to appoint to that committee to be the ones deciding what kinds and types of firearms are going be included, and we know that the definition the Liberals keep trying to tell us about is not based on any kind of science or reality.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Liberals and the NDP have asked the same question. I have contact with one of my good friends in the firearms community, who said the SKS rifle, which is traditionally used by first nations hunters, is one of the rifles that will be caught up in this ban. The Liberals can make this up all they want. I will not believe what the member for New Westminster—Burnaby says because, quite frankly, he has not been telling the truth the whole night.
To my friend from Cypress Hills—Grasslands, would you be willing to say that more guns will be caught up in this ban than—
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:05:03 p.m.
- Watch
There is a point of order by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have tried this numerous times. When they are not able to fabricate or respond to questions, they engage in personal insults. The member should withdraw them.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:05:19 p.m.
- Watch
This is a point of debate.
I would remind the member for Regina—Lewvan that he is to direct his questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to members.
The hon. member's time is up, so I am going to allow the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands to answer.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this gets to the whole point about what the function of the firearm is. The SKS, to the member's question, is quite clearly a hunting rifle. It is used for hunting, yet we see it repeatedly come up with Bill C-21 as a constant problem.
We want to make sure that firearms legislation is actually based on reality, on real facts and on the function of the firearm. We are not seeing that from the Liberals. This is a great question, because many people are concerned about it. It is a very popular gun because it is accurate, it is reliable and it works fantastically for hunting.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country, including, in this very late hour, to talk about an important piece of legislation, Bill C-21.
I would like to express my concerns about this legislation and the potential consequences of it. While the intention of this bill may be to address issues of public safety, it is crucial that we critically examine its provisions and the implications they may have on our society as a whole, especially for law-abiding citizens.
It is important to prioritize public safety. However, this bill fails to acknowledge that attacking responsible law-abiding firearms owners is not a solution to the 32% increase in violent crime we have seen since the Liberals took office. Casting a wide net and imposing bans on firearms owned legally infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens, who use firearms for legitimate purposes such as sport shooting and hunting.
This firearms legislation, Bill C-21, is one of the biggest topics I have heard about during my time as a member of Parliament. There is so much about this bill that does not make sense. It treats law-abiding firearms owners as criminals, undermining the principles of due process and fairness. The overwhelming majority of firearms owners in Canada are law-abiding citizens who have undergone thorough background checks and are responsible in their use, transport and storage of firearms.
This bill has wide-reaching effects on law-abiding farmers, sport shooters, hunters and indigenous peoples. Instead of going after illegal firearms used by criminals and street gangs, the Liberals are focused on going after law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous peoples.
This is from Blane, a resident from Kelowna—Lake Country who reached out to me:
The gun buy back and focus is a bad idea and I reject it. I would hope that you would too. The program targets people who are not the typical culprits in violent crimes. Go after the criminals. And the cost to implement and maintain the proposed program is outrageous! I protest the Liberal program and even its intent because it will neither alleviate nor change violent crimes with guns. Criminals, as a reminder, don't follow the rules.
This bill does not adequately address the root causes of gun violence in our society. Instead of focusing on addressing mental health issues, improving law enforcement and strengthening border controls to combat illegal firearms trafficking, Bill C-21 targets legal firearms owners. No one believes that going after hunters and legal firearms owners will reduce violent crime across the country. This is part of the Liberal plan to distract and divide Canadians.
The Liberals' approach on firearms fails to address the core issues and instead burdens law-abiding citizens with unnecessary restrictions. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police pointed out that restrictions on legal firearms would not “meaningfully address the real issue” about gun violence, as it is illegal weapons that have led to gun violence.
Recent reports have shown that about 85% of handguns used in crimes are imported from the United States illegally. Criminals do not adhere to laws or regulations, and they will continue to access firearms through illicit means regardless of the restrictions imposed on law-abiding citizens. In essence, the bill penalizes responsible gun owners while doing little to address the criminal elements driving gun violence.
A comprehensive approach to reducing gun violence should involve measures that address underlying causes, such as poverty, inequality and mental health issues, while also targeting illegal firearms trafficking and strengthening law enforcement efforts. While the goal of enhancing public safety is important, the Liberals' Bill C-21 misses the mark by imposing ineffective measures that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
If we are truly committed to addressing the issue of gun violence, we must invest in comprehensive solutions. They include strengthening mental health services, focusing on addiction treatment and recovery, getting tough on criminals through bail reform and securing our borders against firearms smuggling. By focusing on these efforts, we can address the root causes of violence and ensure that firearms are used responsibly and safely by law-abiding citizens.
Since the Prime Minister took office, violent crime has increased by 32% and gang-related homicides have nearly doubled. The Liberals are making life easier for violent criminals by repealing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes with Bill C-5. They have also made it easier to get bail with Bill C-75 and are failing to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border.
If the Liberals were serious about addressing public safety, they would listen to Canadians. Recently, I sent out a survey in my community in Kelowna—Lake Country, and the results were astonishing. More than 91% of people said that living in Kelowna—Lake Country had become less safe in the last eight years. This is not due to law-abiding local firearms owners.
Canadians are no longer feeling safe in their own country. There is a demand to get tough on crime, and these Liberals refuse to. Ninety-four per cent of people who filled out my survey said that our bail system is broken, and the overwhelming majority of respondents called for stronger sentencing, the return of minimum sentences and no bail for repeat offenders. A legacy of these Liberals will be disorder and a crime wave on Canada made worse by the Liberal, revolving door bail system.
Here is another part of the firearm legislation that will continue to evolve into the future with no debate in Parliament. There will be a firearms advisory council that will continue to add firearms to the banned list, and this group will be set up by the Liberals. That is the order in council list from May 2020. Regardless of what may be in this legislation, the list will continue to grow with no public consultation.
This firearms legislation has been a disaster from the beginning. It created so much uncertainty from the very moment the order in council occurred in 2020. Then there was the legislation and the dropping of last minute amendments at committee. There was public outcry, government backbenchers speaking out, and many law-abiding residents in my community and across Canada getting involved. This is how the Liberals govern: It is always a mess.
There are so many people that the government did not even consider when it was initially putting this legislation together. A resident reached out to me very concerned as he stated he was a local elite athlete competing in the sport of target shooting. Another issue that has been bought up to me by my local fish and game clubs is that law enforcement officers use the local ranges to train. If these local clubs are not able to sustain themselves because this legislation is making it just too difficult for residents to continue with their sport shooting and training for hunting, this could put in jeopardy the ability for law enforcement members to train. This is a real concern for the clubs and RCMP members I have spoken with.
I have heard from law-abiding firearms owners in Kelowna-Lake Country, who are licensed and follow all the rules. They are concerned with turning in firearms they have collected, and in many cases they have said that they have never used, as they may have been passed on from a deceased family member. They have them stored properly, and they say they have not been anywhere outside of proper areas.
We must strive for a balanced approach that respects the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens while addressing the underlying causes of gun violence. Rather than imposing blanket bans and restrictions, we should focus on comprehensive solutions that promote responsible firearm ownership, address mental health concerns, strengthen law enforcement efforts and combat the illegal trafficking of firearms. Canadians are suffering, and everything feels broken.
Conservatives support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and secure our borders rather than spending billions confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens.
1372 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I noted that handguns tend to represent the largest share of homicides by firearms in Canada, close to 60%, in fact. Does the hon. member believe that firearms are necessary in the hands of civilians anywhere, at any time, in Canada?
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure where the question from the member is coming from because that is not at all in this legislation and it is not at all what I spoke about.
What I spoke about during my intervention was law-abiding firearms owners who, right now, have to go through extensive training and extensive ongoing processes while they have their firearms, including proper storage and proper transport. They are going out to fish and game clubs. These are the people I was talking about in my intervention. I also talked about farmers and sport shooters. These are the people who are extremely concerned with this legislation, and they are not the ones who are causing the gang violence and the rise in crime in our major cities' downtown areas.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member. I think it is very clear that with the withdrawal of amendments G4 and G46, which the NDP forced, no existing firearm is impacted by Bill C-21. The fact is that the Conservatives have been unable to name one firearm that is impacted. They are throwing out names and models, but those amendments have been withdrawn. They are not part of the bill. Careful reading of the bill by any Canadian shows that there is no impact.
At the same time, the whole issue around criminality and criminal gangs and the use of ghost guns is something that is profoundly disquieting for many people across this country. There has been a tenfold increase in some regions of the country. We saw the Biden administration in the United States cracking down on ghost guns and seizing more than 20,000 of those illegal, untraceable firearms that are used by criminals.
Conservatives have been blocking the provisions around ghost guns and filibustering this bill. The focus of the bill is on ghost guns. My simple question is: Why have the Conservatives been blocking this initiative that law enforcement has been calling for?
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
