44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2023 02:00PM
- May/17/23 10:02:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and I share the same concern.
Others have actually posed that sort of question to members of the Conservative Party. They have been kind of dumbfounded, not knowing how to answer it, so they go right to the spin cycle that the Conservative Party says, and a part of that is “do not answer it”.
The simple answer is: zero. There are no restrictions. As I say, this is not, in any way, an attempt to put restrictions on those law-abiding gun owners.
We are being very respectful of that and we will continue to do so.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:03:39 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:03:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it seems that the government members are looking for more information related to the firearms that Conservatives are concerned that the Liberals are seeking to ban, so I would seek unanimous consent from the House to table the amendment—
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:04:10 p.m.
- Watch
We cannot seek unanimous consent at this time.
The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:04:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.
As he did in his speech about the Conservatives, I would like to talk to him about what the Liberals were doing several years ago. When the Liberals were the official opposition, some Liberal MPs swore up and down that they would never legalize drugs. The first thing they did in 2015 when they came to power was to legalize marijuana. The only thing stopping the Liberal government from legalizing hard drugs is the fact that they have a minority government.
Right now, Canadians are asking us to build their trust. They must trust the government on Bill C‑21 and believe that this legislation will never affect the guns of honest Canadians. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance said about an hour ago, here in the House, that the bill provides all the necessary tools to move forward and do even more.
Does the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance here in the House this evening mean that the Liberal government has a hidden agenda?
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is no hidden agenda on the government's side. We are very much an accountable and transparent government.
It is interesting. The member wants to talk about one issue, and I can say that when I listen to the members talk across the way, they often talk about the bail issue.
We have Bill C-48 that has just been introduced. The Conservatives have a chance here. Bill C-48 is being exceptionally well received, virtually coast to coast to coast.
If they are genuinely concerned about bail reform, what they should be doing is saying, look, let us see if we can actually get this bill passed and out of second reading once it gets introduced, so that it can go to a standing committee.
One of the ways they can demonstrate, instead of all of the complaining and the unparliamentary word that I cannot use, instead of doing that, is to actually look at Bill C-48 and see if we can, once it is introduced for the second reading, get the support for it and send it to committee so that the committee will have all sorts of time then to be able to look at all of the wonderful things it is doing and seeing if maybe there are ways we can improve that.
I say Bill C-48 because the member went off this debate and this is how I would respond to it.
242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.
I rise in strong opposition to Bill C-21, the latest ideological, evidence-free attack by the Liberals on law-abiding firearms owners.
Canada is facing a crime wave after eight years of this disastrous Liberal government. Violent crime is up 32%. Gang-related homicides have nearly doubled, up a staggering 94%. An unprecedented 10 police officers since September have been murdered in the line of duty. Random violent attacks on public transit and on the streets are now commonplace in cities right across Canada. More and more Canadians are feeling less safe in their communities, and that is because more communities that once were safe are no longer safe or are less safe now than when the Liberals took office.
By contrast to the staggering 32% increase in violent crime under the Liberals, under Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives, violent crime went down 33%. In fact, the Liberals have managed to do something that no government has done, which is to reverse a 30-year trend in which Canada, until the Liberals came to power, saw a downward spiral in crime. Now it is up 32%.
I say that because this violent crime wave did not happen in a vacuum, it did not happen by accident and it did not even happen as a result of inaction on the part of the Liberals. It happened as a result of very deliberate and very specific policies regarding Canada's criminal justice system embraced by the Liberals.
The Prime Minister has embraced, full stop, a series of virtue-signalling, woke criminal justice policies. These are policies that the Prime Minister has imported from the United States. They are disastrous policies that have been implemented south of the border by radical, left-wing, big-city mayors and district attorneys. They are policies that have resulted in large swaths of once great American cities, such as Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Oregon, turning into crime no-go zones. It is these American-style policies that the Prime Minister is importing to Canada.
Let us look at the disastrous record of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in 2018, was responsible for passing Bill C-75, which established catch-and-release bail. Thanks to the Prime Minister, a judge is now required to make it the primary consideration that an accused be released at the earliest opportunity with the least onerous conditions possible. This has resulted in a revolving door. It has meant that, in many instances, criminals are released back onto the streets and are out committing crimes the very same day they were arrested for the crimes they committed. That is catch-and-release Liberal bail.
Let us look at some of the statistics as a consequence.
In the city of Vancouver, 40 hard-core criminals are responsible for 6,000 arrests a year. That is 150 arrests per offender. Liberal catch-and-release bail has meant that a small number of hard-core criminals are overwhelmingly and disproportionately responsible for a significant number of criminal incidents.
In Edmonton, a community I am proud to represent in this place, a young mother, Carolann Robillard, and her 11-year-old daughter, Sara, are now dead thanks to Liberal catch-and-release bail. Carolann and Sara were brutally murdered, stabbed to death at a park, of all places, at an elementary school.
They were brutally stabbed to death by who? It was a total stranger who happen to be a hard-core violent criminal, who, thanks to Liberal catch-and-release, had been released on bail just 18 days prior. Who was this violent offender who stabbed to death an 11-year-old girl and her young mother outside an elementary school? He was someone who had a 14-year rap sheet of committing violent attacks.
He had been convicted multiple times of serious offences such as aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, multiple robberies and assaulting a correctional officer. Last year, he attacked a 12-year-old girl on an LRT in Edmonton. That is who was released thanks to Liberal catch-and-release bail. He never should have been released. He should have been kept behind bars. He never should have been on bail. It is outrageous that he was.
It is outrageous that the folks across the way can so sanctimoniously defend a series of policies that are indefensible. They are putting lives at risk and endangering public safety. How dare they.
It is not just catch and release. This is a government that, last year, passed Bill C-5, the fourth piece of legislation the government introduced in this Parliament. It is obviously a top priority for the government. What does Bill C-5 do? It significantly expands house arrest for some very serious offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping and human trafficking. In other words, criminals convicted of such offences will not have to spend a single day in jail.
What about firearms? We hear a lot about the Liberals' professed concern about firearms. It seems they are obsessed with firearms as objects, but they have not figured out that firearms do not commit crimes; criminals with firearms commit crimes. What have the Liberals done about criminals who go out and commit offences with guns? Bill C-5 actually eliminates mandatory jail time for serious gun crime, including robbery with a gun, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure and weapons trafficking. That is the approach of the Liberals.
It is a policy of the woke. It is a policy grounded in absurdity. Compounding that absurdity is Bill C-21, which is now before the House. It is a bill that does not take illegal firearms off the streets. It does not keep repeat offenders behind bars where they belong. Incredibly, it goes after law-abiding, licensed firearms owners, who are among the group of Canadians least likely to commit a crime.
Those are the people the Liberals are going after. It could not be more absurd. The government's set of priorities could not be more backwards.
1035 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:17:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will ask the hon. member opposite the same question I have asked many times this evening during this debate.
The Conservatives keep saying that we will not allow people to use commonly used guns, whether it be hunters, farmers or whomever, and that these weapons would be banned forever and a day. Could the member list one legally used hunting rifle that would be banned by this bill?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:17:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I will say to my friend, the member for Avalon, is that the Prime Minister said this in December: “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt.” Those are the words of the Prime Minister. It is true that the Liberals, after considerable pressure, withdrew their table-dropped amendments, but they have established a firearms advisory committee that is going to be tasked with future bans, and the Prime Minister has signalled very clearly that hunters are a target of the government.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, after listening to my colleague, one would think that Bill C-21 is the worst bill that ever existed. I do not know whether he is aware that his fellow party members voted in favour of most of the amendments that were moved to improve this bill.
Take, for example, the ghost gun and yellow flag measures that help women who are victims of domestic violence. Even his colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound moved an extremely important amendment to allow gun owners to give their guns to someone else while they seek help for a mental health issue. Everyone was in favour of that amendment. The Conservatives also voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois's amendment to require people to have a licence to purchase cartridge magazines.
In short, the Conservative Party helped improve Bill C‑21. Is my colleague aware of that?
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is true that the Conservatives supported certain amendments at committee. We helped improve a terrible bill to make it a slightly less terrible bill.
The member cites red flag laws. I note that section 117 of the Criminal Code already provides law enforcement with the authority to seize firearms when there is a safety issue, without a warrant. That aspect of the bill, really, is not an improvement, and it does not take away from the fact that the entire concept of the bill is misplaced. It targets law-abiding firearms owners, people who are not going out committing crimes. They are the targets of Bill C-21. The government should really be going after the gangs and criminals who are going out and committing crimes with guns.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has been talking about going after crimes. I would like to hear his opinion on a part of the bill that has been overshadowed by much of today's debate.
The National Association of Women and the Law contributed greatly to the committee hearings on this bill. It submitted a lot of amendments that really helped improve it. It has publicly stated that many of the provisions in Bill C-21 are going to help women in domestic violence situations by providing that a firearms licence must be revoked when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that someone may have engaged in family violence, by making sure there is a protection order and by making sure that somebody would be ineligible to hold a licence if they pose a threat or risk to the safety of another person.
I wonder if my hon. colleague can talk about that. This is a very well-respected organization that studied the bill and came up with great amendments, and it has publicly stated that these provisions are actually going to make lives safer.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:21:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, some 20 women's organizations came before committee and said that the bill was problematic. Specifically, the so-called red flag provisions of the bill were problematic by virtue of the fact that section 117 of the Criminal Code already gives law enforcement the tools necessary to seize weapons when a woman is in danger.
What the Liberals are providing is that, instead of law enforcement doing its job, a woman in danger would now be required to go to court. Women's organizations have said this is burdensome, puts women at risk and does not do the job.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, here we go again. This reminds me of an old song I used to like to listen to in high school. Whitesnake was the band, and the lyrics are “Here I go again...down the only road I've ever known”. This speaks to this bill. This is the Liberals. Here they go again, going down the only road they have ever known.
Violent crime in this country is up by a third since the Liberal Party took office. Murders have doubled and our border to the south is like a sieve, with black market handguns flowing through there every single day. What is the Liberal response to this? What is their big idea? What are they going to do to protect Canadians in the face of rising crime and in the face of porous borders with black market handguns flowing through on a daily basis?
The Liberals' response is, again, “Here we go again. Let us just keep going down the only road we have ever known”, but it is a nonsensical one. It is one we have, sadly, seen before, and we have seen it too often from that same bunch over there. Their response to illegal guns coming in from the United States and getting into the hands of criminal gangs in cities of this country is to simply deprive millions of law-abiding Canadians of their right to own legal property, their hunting rifles. Here we go again, with the Liberals going down the only road they have ever known. In doing so, they are trying to deny and deflect from the fact that their real goal is actually to deprive hunters, farmers and indigenous people, anyone and everyone who legitimately owns firearms, of those firearms they have used legally and responsibly, often for much of their lives.
The Prime Minister already admitted that taking hunting rifles is his goal, when he said, during a CTV interview, “Our focus now is on saying okay...yes...we're going to have to take [some guns] away from people who were using them to hunt.” That has been made pretty clear. The Liberals want to take away firearms that not only are part of our collective history in Canada but also are embedded in rural culture and in traditional ways of life in this country. They are so dishonest about their intentions that they try to do this under the guise of addressing an urban violence problem.
It defies common sense, actually, to believe banning legal firearms of licensed owners would somehow address a problem of illegal guns in the hands of criminals, but there we have it. That is the Liberal brainwave for public safety. It certainly would not bring about the outcomes they claim. They know this, and it galls them to think Canadians know it too. The government faced a massive public backlash from ordinary Canadians all across the political spectrum who saw its actions for what they are, which is the largest attack on hunters and duck hunters in Canadian history. Then they backpedalled and temporarily paused their attack. They were no doubt taken aback a bit by realizing their distaste for legal firearm owners and the legal activities they like to enjoy was not as widely shared as they thought.
However, the Liberals' endgame has always remained the same, and here we are with “new” amendments to Bill C-21. I, like most members, including, I am sure, most of the Liberals who are putting forward Bill C-21 in the first place, have been swamped with calls and letters from constituents pleading for common sense to prevail. They ask what sense it makes to pursue a so-called gun control strategy that relies on further penalizing some of the world's most regulated and restricted legal firearm owners, while at the same time turning a completely blind eye to the flood of smuggled illegal guns being used by criminals in the streets of our major cities. It is a great question that is central to the matter, and it is one the Liberals continually fail to answer.
That is why this issue continues to simmer, despite the government's best efforts to defuse it. It is because Canadians understand instinctively that the government proposals here make no sense, if the stated goal is actually to address crime. No one believes that going after hunters will reduce violent crime. I do not think even most Liberals truly believe it, but they pursue it anyway because it is a matter of ideology for them, rather than one of intellect. We have been dealing with this issue for years, but the Liberals are content to ignore the repeated common-sense arguments against their attempts to end legal gun ownership in Canada.
I have spoken on this many times, and I think, if I am telling the truth, there is not a whole lot I have left unsaid, so I thought I would spend a bit of time differently, to allow some of my very concerned constituents to have their own say on the matter here in the chamber. I think the Liberals need to hear it from these people first-hand. I am unfortunately under no illusion that the members of the Liberal Party will care about what law-abiding firearm owners have to say, but they are going to have to hear it anyway.
I received a letter recently from Joel in Rocky View County, in my riding of Banff—Airdrie, who quite rightly pointed out that granting the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security broad powers to address unlawfully manufactured, unserialized and untraceable firearms could inadvertently infringe upon the rights of responsible gun owners and impose unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens. Joel says that the amendments to the definition of prohibited firearms seem overly broad and lack clear criteria and could potentially lead to legal ambiguity and confusion, impacting the rights of legitimate firearms owners without effectively targeting criminal activity. He is exactly right. The bill would do nothing to impact criminal activity.
I got another letter, from Lars, who wrote to me from my hometown of Airdrie. He asks when this constant attack on legal firearm owners would stop. He asks what has been done in the meantime to strengthen our justice system or resources to our border to prevent the smuggling of illegal firearms. He notes that the Liberal government has been under scandal over and over again, yet it is telling Canadians what it takes to be safe. Lars says that this needs to stop. Those are more great points.
Justin, who resides in my riding, in Morley in the Stoney Nakoda Nations, points out the complaints many indigenous people have about the bill, and he talks about their frustration at trying to get the Prime Minister to respect their concerns. He asks me to please let the Prime Minister know that, as owners, they will never abide by measures that take away their personal property. He notes that there are many indigenous hunters on the reserve who depend on traditional hunting to support their families. He closes by saying that I can read his email in Parliament, and that he stands with all legal firearm owners, as they were never consulted.
There are so many more examples I could submit for the record, and they all have the same theme. This is probably not surprising, when we consider all the ways the Liberals have tried to make it so much easier for criminals to flourish. They have repealed mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. They have made it easier to get bail. They have failed to stop the flow of illegal guns across the U.S. border. Their catch-and-release policies for violent criminals and their lax attitudes toward secure borders are clearly not working.
The Liberals are trying to convince Canadians that, somehow, going after hunters and other legitimate firearms owners would reduce violent crime in this country. It is a nonsensical plan. It would have the effect of doing nothing to deter the real problem of illegal guns and the associated gun crime.
Instead of spending billions of taxpayer dollars to confiscate the legal property of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous Canadians, we could see a common-sense firearms policy under a Conservative government that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and leave alone those who legally possess guns and use them responsibly.
1426 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, many times in the member opposite's speech and in many of his colleagues', they have stated that what needs to be done in order to tackle gun crime in this country is to bring in stiffer penalties and more measures at the border. I find it interesting that they all failed to state that Bill C-21 does that.
I want to know if the member agrees with increasing the maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment for firearms-related offences. That is a good measure in the bill. Do Conservatives not think that increasing penalties is a good measure?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:33:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suppose if the member wants to believe the talking points she has been handed to read in the House she would make that argument. What she is failing to understand is that we are not talking about a mandatory penalty or even a minimum penalty; we are talking about a maximum penalty.
Anyone who understands the criminal justice system knows that a maximum penalty means it cannot be more than that, but it certainly does nothing to penalize crime. There are a lot of measures that could be taken to deal with the gun crime we are seeing in our cities, but that one is laughable to say the least. The bill does zero at trying to address crime.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague talks a lot about doing more to address crime. I agree with him.
The only measure in Bill C‑21 that the government proposed for countering firearms trafficking is to change the maximum sentences from 10 years to 14 years for anyone found guilty of firearms trafficking.
Although this is not a bad measure, the problem is that it is quite rare for someone to get the maximum sentence of 10 years these days. Why? It is because criminal organizations use people who do not have a criminal record to smuggle illegal firearms across the border. As a result, these people get lesser sentences. They rarely get the 10-year maximum.
Today, with Bill C‑21, even if we increase the maximum sentence to 14 years, will that really have an impact? I do not think so. I think that my colleague may agree with me. Does he think that is enough?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:35:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the member. That measure will not have an impact on crime in this country. This bill only affects gun owners who are not responsible for crimes.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, although there was a lot of disinformation and misinformation in it, I thank the member for his intervention. I would have very much appreciated hearing about, with respect to Bill C-21, how hard my NDP colleagues are willing to work to protect the rights of people. I asked a different Conservative member about the outdated information Conservatives are sharing this evening in this debate.
I know Bill C-21, in its current state, has the best balance and offers many ways to ensure that the right of indigenous peoples to hunt is protected, and that hunters who are lawful gun owners are able to continue using their rifles. In this whole process, it has been Conservatives who have made a lot of mistakes, including trying to ensure there are no more exemptions for sport shooters.
I would like to ask the member what his read of Bill C-21 is with respect to what rifle is being banned that would not allow hunters to hunt or would not stopping criminals from using—
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 10:38:11 p.m.
- Watch
We are out of time. I have to give the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie a few seconds to answer.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
