44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2023 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am happy to be rising today to discuss this piece of legislation, but I am happy to be rising as a law-abiding firearms owner to defend my fellow law-abiding firearms owners.
How did we get here? I will put things in context so the people who might be watching at home know whom they are listening to. I am a member of Parliament for an urban-rural split riding in central Alberta. Half of my constituents live in Red Deer, the third-largest city in Alberta, and the other half live on a first nation reserve, or in a rural setting in Red Deer County, Lacombe County or Ponoka County, or in a small town, city or village therein.
I would consider the people I represent to be honest, hard-working, law-abiding folks who want their tax dollars spent wisely and want the freedom to pursue whatever they want to pursue in life. Many of them pursue various things that involve firearms, including hunting, farming on farms like the one I grew up on, where firearms are just a tool and an everyday part of life, or sport shooting. This is very popular in my constituency. There are numerous stores and vendors in central Alberta that supply firearms, ammunition and parts because of the demand that is there.
I can tell members that we do not have the problems that my colleague who just spoke talked about in her large urban centre, because we respect the law. We put policies in place at the provincial level, and when we are the governing party, we put laws in place that actually crack down on criminals. That is where the actual issue lies.
I can assure Canadians who might be watching at home that the firearms I own are doing nothing right now. They do not do anything until someone picks them up. The issue at hand is violent crime and who has access to firearms. There are numerous provisions in this bill, Bill C-21, that do not address, penalize or in any way affect the outcome of dealing with the wrong people getting a hold of firearms.
How did we get here? Over the course of the preceding decades, Canada was a country that was a rugged place to settle, and it is still a rugged place for some who live in rural areas or adjacent to wild areas or who are farming, involved in forestry, or doing something as seemingly innocuous as keeping beehives. Anybody watching at home who grew up with cartoon books would know that Winnie-the-Pooh was addicted to honey. This is not by chance. Bears often frequent these places, and good, honest people have bought firearms to protect themselves, many of whom were caught up in the order in council that came out a number of years ago.
It all started in the 1930s. If we go back that far, every single firearm and handgun in this country has been put in a registry, but that does not stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally. The government of the day, whenever it is Liberal or Liberal-leaning, seems to want to blame the law-abiding citizen, so, for decades, we have had a firearms registry and the government knows where all the lawfully owned handguns in this country are. Changes were brought in back when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister, including a long-gun registry, which was wasteful and ineffective. The government of the day said it would cost only $2 million, but it was actually closer to $2 billion. Of course, it did not do anything to address violent crime.
We have seen the current government, in its first mandate, put in place Bill C-75, which basically codified in law bail provisions that would let people out in the shortest amount of time with the smallest number of restrictions, and now we see what has happened with that.
What did Bill C-21 originally do? When the members of this House were invited to speak to the bill, it was simply the codification in law of an order in council to ban the transfer of handguns. Then, sneakily, the government decided to table-drop, back in November, a huge stack of amendments that had absolutely nothing to do with handguns. They were all about long guns, and of course the government bit off far more than it could chew.
The government managed to alienate almost all of its voting base when it comes to indigenous Canadians, who were offended by the fact that the firearms used by indigenous people were largely going to be caught up in amendment G-46, taking away their ability to use that firearm.
There was also an evergreen clause in G-4, and I am sorry to report that there is a new evergreen clause put in place that does virtually the same thing, with a minor exception, which I will explain in a few minutes, when I get back to what the problem actually is with the government's notions going forward on its new evergreen clause.
We all remember what happened. It was pretty obvious, because we heard the recordings from the Mass Casualty Commission. The government actually interfered. It took this mass casualty event in Nova Scotia and interfered in the investigation by demanding that the officers who were investigating at the time turn over information to advance a political agenda of the government of the day.
We know it is not about evidence. It is not evidence-based policy-making; it is policy-based evidence-making and evidence-finding, even if it interferes with a police investigation. That is why there is very little trust by law-abiding firearms owners in the intentions of the Liberal government, which is supported by the NDP, and what it is doing.
What is the problem? The problem is violent crime. In the last eight years, violent crime has risen because of the provisions that have been passed by the government when it had a majority and with the support of other left-leaning parties in this place. They passed numerous pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, that have basically eliminated any consequences whatsoever for people who commit crimes, so much so that violent crime in the last eight years is up 32% over what it was when the Prime Minister and his government inherited the government offices of this place.
More astonishing is this number: 94% increase in gang-related homicides. One would think that an almost doubling of the number of homicides by gang members would trigger a response from the government to crack down on organized crime, but it actually has done the opposite. The passages and clauses in the Criminal Code that would deal with people who are repeat violent offenders have largely been removed, as well as any semblance of a minimum sentence. I am not even talking about mandatory minimum sentences put in place by Stephen Harper when he was prime minister, and by the way crime went down over those 10 years, but I am getting to the point of the fact that numerous basic minimum sentences were removed.
These were put in place by people like Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. Of the 12 firearms-related clauses in that piece of legislation, 11 were actually put in place by previous Liberal governments, and the current version of the Liberal government has removed even the most basic minimum sentences for violent crime, including smuggling, firing a gun irresponsibly or even holding a gun to somebody's head for the purpose of extortion. It has removed any mandatory jail time whatsoever for those.
That is the tone and the signal Liberals have sent to the country. Why would criminals not want to increase their activity? There are no consequences, and this is the problem.
I will give an example of the illogic of what the government is doing right now. According to the RCMP's website, there are approximately 430 gangs in Canada with 7,000 members in those gangs. If we look at the average number of homicides committed by people associated with gangs over the last five or six years, it is about 50% of murders. Fifty per cent of murders are committed by gang members, or about 125 a year. There are 2.2 million licensed gun owners in this country. If we look over that same time period, we will see that they are charged for homicide about 12 times a year.
That is 12 out of 2.2 million people versus 125 out of 7,000 people. Who does the government go after? It goes after the 2.2 million. It does not make any sense whatsoever. If we do the math, a gang member is 3,300 times more likely to commit murder with a firearm than a law-abiding firearm owner is, yet the government focuses only on the law-abiding firearm owner.
Gary Mauser, professor emeritus, did an analysis for Statistics Canada that shows that Canadians who are not licensed firearms owners are still three times more likely to commit a homicide than a vetted, licensed gun owner is. For the people who are watching at home, the safest people in Canada for them to be with are legally vetted, law-abiding firearm owners who, at any time, could have their firearms taken away with any complaint lodged against them. That means that every firearm owner meticulously follows the laws of storage, the laws of transportation and the laws of safe discharge. As a matter of fact, we jokingly quip sometimes that gun control meetings are about making sure one's muzzle is always pointed downrange. That is what gun control is to a law-abiding gun owner. We follow all the rules because we do not want to risk losing our privileges, because the fact is that every firearm in Canada is illegal unless it is in the possession of somebody with a licence who is authorized to have that firearm.
We have to go through a renewal process every five years, during which our entire history, including our mental health history, our medical history and anything that might have happened before the courts is reviewed in detail. We wait months to get our licence renewed. Sometimes it is not renewed on time. This puts us in a situation, as law-abiding firearm owners, where we are now in possession of our firearms, which were legal one day, but of which, because of the incompetence of the government to process an application on time, we are now technically, according to the law, illegally in possession. We actually had a clause, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, where people had a six-month grace period. I am very frustrated by the removal of that grace period, and I will get to that in a minute.
In committee, Dr. Caillin Langmann from McMaster University basically laid it out for everybody to see. His brief states:
The foregoing research papers are peer reviewed and conclude that Canadian legislation to regulate and control firearm possession and acquisition does not have a corresponding effect on homicide and suicide rates.
It also states:
I was asked to produce a review paper for the Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2021. This paper entitled, “Suicide, firearms, and legislation: A review of the Canadian evidence” reviewed 13 studies regarding suicide and legislative efforts and found an associated reduction in suicide by firearm in men aged 45 and older but demonstrated an equivalent increase in suicide by other methods such as hanging. Factors such as unemployment, low income, and indigenous populations were associated with suicide rates....
My conclusions are based on sound statistical analysis and information specifically related to Canada. I am not aware of any other Canadian research which uses reliable statistical models to dispute or disagree with my conclusions.
The brief also states:
Bans of military-appearing firearms, semiautomatic rifles and handguns, short barrel handguns and Saturday night specials in the 1990s has resulted in no associated reduction in homicide rates.
To summarize the results, no statistically significant beneficial associations were found between firearms legislation and homicide by firearm, as well as spousal homicide by firearms, and the criminal charge of “Discharge of a Firearm with Intent”....
Other studies have demonstrated agreement with my studies that laws targeting restricted firearms such as handguns and certain semi-automatic and full automatic firearms in Canada also had no associated effect with homicide rates. Canadian studies by Leenaars and Lester 2001, Mauser and Holmes 1992, and McPhedran and Mauser 2013, are all in general agreement with my study.
The issue is violent crime. It is about controlling violent criminals, controlling those people. One can control inanimate objects all one wants, but it will not change anything. Therefore, the “who” is not the problem. It is not hunters. Over eight million people in this country hunt and fish, contributing $19 billion annually to the GDP, and the order in council has already banned rifles used for hunting, some that even conservation officers use. I was a conservation officer. I was a national park warden and I was issued firearms for my duties. I was a park ranger in charge of a park in the province of Alberta and I was issued firearms for those duties as well. Every person I dealt with as a conservation officer was at least a camper who had an axe, a fisherman who had a knife or a hunter who had either a rifle or a bow and arrow. I had no trouble with those good people, no trouble whatsoever.
We are going to ban the very guns that conservation officers use, but they do not have those firearms. The Yukon government actually had to go around the order in council to buy firearms for its conservation officers, because those are the best firearms available to protect its officers from bears, mountain lions and all of the other issues that conservation officers face, because that is where the real issue lies.
It is very clear to me as a hunter, that, with the changes the Liberals have made, they are weasel words, especially the evergreen clause that deals with magazines. I laid it out very clearly at committee that anybody who wants to interpret it that way can say that, as long as a firearm can take a magazine that holds more than five rounds, it shall be banned. After this becomes law, we would end up in a situation in which, with guns that are functionally identical, one from 10 years ago and a new firearm, one would be prohibited and the other would still be legal. This is because of the clear lack of knowledge and understanding, when it comes to firearms, of people who do not own guns, making laws that simply do not work. We are going to have that scenario again.
However, if people think their gun is safe because they have an older gun that is not included in the new evergreen clause, they should think again, because the firearms committee that would be struck would still have the same authority to do a firearms reference table analysis and ban whatever guns it does not like.
I have news for everybody in this room. If we look at all of the hunting regulations in all of the provinces and territories in this country, a hunting rifle is a rifle that is in the hands of a hunter, used for the purposes of the hunt. It does not matter what it looks like; it just matters what the calibre of the bullet is, so the animal can be safely dispatched.
I could go on for literally a couple more hours and talk about the end of cowboy mounted shooting, cowboy action shooting, IPSC, all of these sports for all of these good people. They are mostly Filipinos there, by the way, when I go to an IPSC event. They are people who have moved here from a country that never allowed them to own firearms, but they have come here and taken up this sport and activity. They are frustrated because, when we take away the ability to transfer these handguns between law-abiding citizens, it will be the end of thousands of people's enjoyment of the sports that involve handguns. I look forward to answering some hopefully logical questions from around the room.
Before I conclude, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 0.1, 1.1 and 17, with a view to ensure that the government cannot take away hunting rifles from law-abiding farmers, hunters and Indigenous peoples.”
2876 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 6:57:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I referred to a specific company in Quebec City that sells airsoft guns. This will certainly help save many jobs in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. That is a good thing.
I would even go so far as to say that firearms vendors in general have nothing to fear. As I mentioned, Bill C‑21 will prohibit firearms that do not yet exist. It is not true that hunting rifles will be prohibited the instant Bill C‑21 is passed. People will be able to continue buying and using them. I believe that it is important to include that in the messaging, because that is how Bill C‑21 will be passed.
I am not saying that it is great to still have so many firearms that are considered assault weapons in circulation. As I was saying, the minister could take action by introducing an order in council for these firearms. However, for firearms that are reasonably used for hunting, everyone can rest assured. People can continue to use these firearms.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague when I was on the public safety committee and I absolutely share her joy in the victory that we were able to achieve for the airsoft community. I too have received many thanks from communities in my own riding and across British Columbia. That indeed is a good thing that the committee was able to achieve.
The member was there on the committee with me back in November of last year when those 11th-hour, ill-advised amendments dropped in the committee's lap and caused all of this uproar. If she will remember correctly, in December, one of the leading voices against those amendments came from indigenous communities. It culminated when the Assembly of First Nations came out with a very rare unanimous emergency resolution that its members were against the amendments. I have heard from many people in indigenous communities who have explained why they have depended on semi-automatic rifles to protect themselves when they were out hunting wildlife.
Can the member explain this for colleagues in the House? Is it her understanding that current makes and models of rifles and shotguns are not affected by Bill C-21? Can she also elaborate as to why it was important to insert an amendment in this bill that would recognize the rights that are upheld under section 35 of the Constitution Act?
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 7:49:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be factual and we are going to resort to truths here, the member should read the bill. The bill is very clear about gun ownership. It says that if people have rifles, certain types of hunting rifles are still available. There is a clause in there that would allow people with handguns to continue to have their handguns; they just cannot be traded or resold. I would just suggest that the member read the bill for clarity and he would understand what the actual rules are. The farmers and the folks who hunt, who need those firearms, would still have the opportunity to use the appropriate gun for the work they do.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am always grateful to be here speaking in the House on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, but more importantly, for all the law-abiding firearms owners out there right across the country, particularly veterans, those in the military, those in law enforcement, sport shooters and even those in our parliamentary protective services.
I am disappointed to be once again speaking here under time allocation. When I spoke to the bill at second reading last year, it was under the same time allocation restrictions.
My speech will highlight three key factors: basing any dialogue or debate on the bill around data and facts, being open and transparent to Canadians and ultimately respecting our firearms owners. Underlying all of that, I will highlight the need for education to the general public and parliamentarians.
For the sake of transparency and to help educate all MPs and all Canadians listening tonight, let us review the history of how we got here at third reading via the data and facts.
First off, we have heard the terms, which have already been used a few times tonight, “assault weapon” and “military-style assault weapon”. I have been trying for three years to get an answer on that. The government's own commission report from Hill+Knowlton, which is on the Public Safety website, talks about the data that my fellow colleague spoke about: The vast majority of respondents, just shy of 200,000, do not support a handgun ban at all. In particular, the report talks about the need to define what is meant by “military-style assault rifle”. That is what the report says. When I asked the government to get that in writing, it said to look at this report, but the report says that the government better define it. Now here we are, umpteen years later, with no definition, and I have been trying with every tool at my disposal as a member of Parliament to get it.
As to the data on gun crime, over 85% of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. They are not done by law-abiding firearms owners. In fact, law-abiding firearms owners are three times less likely to commit any crime compared to the average Canadian. I find it very frustrating for us to be debating a bill that is targeting the wrong demographic. We should be focusing on criminals, not law-abiding firearms owners.
In any case, the bill was brought forward last June as a handgun freeze, which ultimately the government did through regulation last October. There were a couple of other components to it. It talked about making airsoft or paintball guns illegal, and it talked about bringing in enhanced red and yellow flag laws.
Unfortunately, once the bill was debated in the fall, it did not take long for the government to use time allocation again to get it through second reading and get it to committee. It was then studied at committee, where loads of time was taken up with testimony. Experts were brought in to refute and apparently support the government's legislation in some ways. However, in the end, funny enough, in all the testimony brought in around airsoft, we heard, “Whoa, why are you going after this community? They're not the problem.”
On the red and yellow flag laws, I think initially there was a somewhat unanimous belief that the government's intention was correct, but we heard from the vast majority of women's groups that, in fact, they were going to make things worse and make it more difficult for them to get a response from law enforcement for their own safety. Members do not have to take my word for it. Ms. Rathjen from PolySeSouvient said, “there is not one women's group that asked for this measure.” Also, Louise Riendeau, from Regroupement, said, “we think these measures are unnecessary and may even be counterproductive for victims.... [W]e recommend that clauses...which introduce these “red flag” measures, be [removed from the bill].”
When we got through that, it was getting pretty evident to the government that the whole purpose behind the bill and two of the elements did not even make sense. They likely were not going to survive, so what did we see happen next? At the last minute, the government table-dropped hundreds and hundreds of amendments, including the infamous G-4 and G-46, which went after the vast majority of hunters' and farmers' semi-automatic rifles and shotguns right across this country, which obviously created a great uproar.
Before I forget, I am splitting my time with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.
I know the chair of the committee was speaking before me. We automatically challenged the whole idea of going after law-abiding hunters' shotguns and rifles. It was out of the scope of the bill and was not what we debated. Unfortunately, the chair ruled that it was within the scope. Then we challenged it, but the member from the NDP supported that it was in scope, which created a great uproar because we could not kill this the minute it was tabled. The Assembly of First Nations, many indigenous groups, the vast majority of hunters and farmers and even sports icons came out in opposition to these last-minute amendments, and the backlash was great.
Fortunately, the NDP saw the light. It changed tactics and ultimately the Liberals realized their mistake. However, when they realized they were in trouble, they started filibustering the committee. In fact, one Liberal member ate up two meetings alone talking about firearms 101 just to kill time as they tried to figure out how to back themselves out of the situation they put themselves in.
We hit Christmas recess and came back in the new year. The committee then had to wait over six weeks for the Minister of Public Safety to show up and testify at committee, which he finally did a few weeks ago, in late April. Lo and behold, what did we see happen less than a week later? On May 1, the minister came out and said he was going to come forth with another new amendment to Bill C-21 that he would introduce at the last minute. It was a new definition of prohibited firearms. This was just a day prior to the clause-by-clause review recommencing at committee.
Obviously, members of the committee were very concerned. If I had had a chance to ask the chair, I would have asked if he thought there was any filibustering going on. We ate up one two-hour meeting asking officials some legitimate questions to make sure this new definition of prohibited firearms was not going to impact hunters, sport shooters and law-abiding firearms owners right across this country. Remember, we already had the Prime Minister on the public record saying he was going after some of the hunting rifles from our law-abiding firearms owners.
I was sitting at the committee that day, and I was quite surprised by the NDP House leader when he immediately started accusing the Conservative members of the committee of filibustering. In fact, at one meeting, 45 minutes into it, the Conservative members had talked for less than a minute and the member from the NDP had spoken for more time than anybody else in that 45 minutes while he was complaining about somebody filibustering.
Unfortunately, we are here now at third reading. However, I have some good news to share with Canadians and with members here in the House. I got an amendment through, which basically passed unanimously at committee. It was an amendment to focus on providing the necessary resources and ability for a licensed firearm owner to temporarily store their firearms with another licensed individual or business while they are dealing with mental health issues. Once the handgun freeze was brought in, a lot of veterans, who are potentially dealing with PTSD and mental health issues, were afraid to do anything with their guns. They were not going to seek help because they did not want to lose them full time.
Some bad news is that the red flag laws were supported by the NDP. They did not get cut from the bill. Even now, the Prime Minister and the government have come out and said they are going to use the Canadian firearms advisory committee, which they stopped using over four years ago, to continue to target the rifles and shotguns of law-abiding hunters and farmers.
Let us just educate Canadians and focus support on the root causes of gun violence in this country: crime, drugs, gangs, illegal trafficking of firearms, no substantive bail reform and, most importantly, poverty. That is instead of going after our law-abiding firearms owners. I will be voting against Bill C-21, a basically useless bill.
1507 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 8:18:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, absolutely I will contribute. In fact, I will give a little history lesson for the member and for everybody here.
Assault weapons have been banned in Canada since January 1, 1978. As somebody who has carried assault weapons in the theatre of war, I know there is not a single firearm out of the 1,500, now 2,000, firearms that have been prohibited through the May 1 OIC, and subsequently through an order in council and the firearms program, that I, as a military member, would have ever purchased, helped define or take on, with the exception of a couple of sniper rifles, which do not fit the definition that has been put forth.
I will correct the member. The terms “military-style assault firearm” and “assault firearm” are not in the bill or anywhere in legislation that I am aware of, not a single spot. The definition that has been brought forward is a new definition of a prohibited firearm. The NPD member earlier even talked about how the government already had the capacity to redefine what a prohibited firearm is just through regulation. The minister has that power.
Ultimately, I am confident that with a future Conservative government, we will properly define firearms in this country.
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Beauce.
The Liberals are on a mission to ban hunting rifles in Canada. Tonight, we are debating Bill C-21, legislation that is designed to ban firearms used by law-abiding hunters and farmers. When discussing this bill on TV, the Prime Minister said, “we're going to have to take [guns] away from people who were using them to hunt.”
That is why, at the public safety committee, the Liberals tried to slip in amendments that would have banned several common hunting rifles, including the SKS, the Ruger No. 1, the Mossberg 702 Plinkster tactical 22, the Westley Richards Model 1897 and many slow-to-fire hunting firearms designed to shoot birds or skeet.
After public backlash from rural communities across the country, and in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservatives, the Minister of Public Safety retreated in defeat. However, the Prime Minister is still hunting for a way to take away legal firearms from law-abiding Canadians. Since his plan A failed, he has moved to plan B.
He is now setting up an advisory committee to make further recommendations on gun control, and he has given himself the power to ban firearms by an order in council. Members can be sure that he will appoint activists to the advisory committee who will tell him what he wants to hear. He will then hide behind their advice and unilaterally ban hunting rifles without any further debate or votes in this House of Commons. Conservatives oppose giving the Prime Minister this power; we do not trust him to leave law-abiding firearms owners alone. After all, he already admitted his true agenda, which is to take away their hunting rifles.
The NDP members are putting their faith in the Liberal Prime Minister, as they always do. They will vote in favour of this secretive, undemocratic process, wherein the Prime Minister can once again attack rural Canada. The NDP once championed the rural way of life, but it has become a party that takes its marching orders from special interest groups and, frankly, woke, big city mayors. The NDP has forgotten about the rich hunting tradition in rural communities, a tradition that is as old as the land itself. Traditions have been passed down from generation to generation. Many families rely on wild game to fill their freezers and to feed their families. For them, hunting is a way of life.
When I was young, my family lived on beautiful Vancouver Island. I fondly remember friends and family celebrating their successful hunts. Recently, I travelled back to the island, where I spoke with a man named Frank. He is a small business owner struggling to make ends meet under crippling inflation, which is at a 40-year high. Given the high cost of food, driven up by the carbon tax, Frank cannot afford to buy meat at his local grocery store. Hunting with his legally owned firearm allows him to provide meat for his growing family of five. Frank is a law-abiding, hard-working and proud Canadian whose way of life is under threat from Bill C-21.
Frank is not alone. His story is like the stories of many others on Vancouver Island and in every region of the country. The rural NDP members have completely abandoned people like Frank. The voting record will show that NDP members from rural British Columbia have turned their backs on their own constituents.
This includes the member for Courtenay—Alberni, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay and the member for North Island—Powell River. These NDP members do not have the backs of their constituents when they are thousands of miles away from home in the House of Commons.
In particular, I am disappointed with the whip of the NDP, the member for North Island—Powell River. She had the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford removed from the public safety committee in the middle of its consideration of the bill. She silenced him because he raised concerns about the bill. She replaced him with an urban, anti-hunting member, the NDP House leader, for fear that they might upset their big city base.
She should know that the data and evidence are clear in that licensed firearm owners are far less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen. That is why the Liberal-NDP coalition should leave law-abiding firearms owners alone and target the real perpetrators of gun crime.
What I find particularly egregious is that the Liberal-NDP coalition did the opposite by eliminating mandatory prison time for serious gun crimes, including robbery or extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in commission of a crime and reckless discharge of a firearm. It is letting drive-by shooters and gun runners back into our communities sooner while targeting law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.
It also broke the bail system by legislating a catch-and-release program that has led to a 32% increase in violent crimes. As a result, B.C. cities, including my home of Surrey, are facing an onslaught of violent crime. University Magazine identified Surrey as having the highest crime rate in Canada. The decent, hard-working families who choose to live and work in Surrey just want a safe community to raise their families and live in peace. Under the soft-on-crime Liberal government, they are forced to live in a community where criminals are emboldened. This approach is not working in Surrey on anywhere in British Columbia.
We all remember the tragic murder of Constable Shaelyn Yang; while on duty, she was stabbed to death by a man who had previously been arrested for assault. He was released on condition that he would appear in court, which is something that, surprisingly, he failed to do. A warrant was issued for his rearrest, but when found living in a tent in Burnaby Park, he took the life of Constable Yang by stabbing her to death. Sadly, she is just one of 10 police officers killed in the line of duty this year.
In another case, a tourist was stabbed multiple times in the back while waiting in line at a Tim Hortons in Vancouver. His assailant was the subject of a Canada-wide warrant for failing to follow conditions of his release. In Vancouver, 40 offenders accounted for 6,000 arrests in one year. That is an average of 150 arrests each.
Unfortunately, the breakdown of public safety extends far beyond B.C. We all watched with horror last summer after the mass killing on James Smith Cree Nation happened in Saskatchewan. The perpetrator had previously been charged with over 120 crimes, but that did not prevent him from taking 10 indigenous lives.
Following that senseless tragedy, the Leader of the Opposition stood in this House, pleading for change. He said, “The James Smith Cree Nation was not only the victim of a violent criminal, but also the victim of a broken criminal justice system.” He went on to say:
A system that allows a violent criminal to reoffend over and over again with impunity does not deserve to be called a justice system. Leaving victims vulnerable to repeat attacks by a violent felon is not criminal justice. It is criminal negligence.
As Conservatives, we believe that someone who makes one mistake should be given every opportunity to build a productive life for themselves. However, the justice system cannot allow dangerous, violent repeat offenders to terrorize our streets. I will vote against Bill C-21, because it would do nothing to take illegal guns off our streets.
Canada needs a Conservative government that will target gun smuggling and end easy access to bail for repeat violent offenders. Only Conservatives will bring home common sense to public safety that targets criminals, not law-abiding Canadians. We will be a government that respects and protects law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters. Why will we do this? We will do it because it is their home, my home and our home. We will use common sense to bring it home.
1402 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I think my Conservative Party colleagues are taking intellectual shortcuts.
They say that Bill C‑21 is the biggest ban on hunting rifles in Canadian history. They know full well that that is not true. They say that once Bill C‑21, which does not affect hunting rifles, is passed, the minister is obviously going to issue an order in council banning hunting rifles. According to the Conservatives, this means that the government is going after hunters. That is not at all what is happening.
I want to know how my colleague can see into the future.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I frankly resent the personal remarks of that member. I am a lawyer by background, and honour, ethics and integrity are important to me, as they are to the rest of my Conservative colleagues. I am not misinforming this House, and I am not stating falsehoods.
I am telling the truth about what Bill C-21 would do and what this advisory committee would probably do. One just needs to look at the earlier announcements, which ban such rifles as the Winchester model 100, Winchester 1910, Sauer 303, Ruger Deerfield Carbine and Remington 740. I could go on. Clearly they want to do by order in council what they did not want to do openly in this House.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since the beginning of this debate, the Conservatives have been saying that Bill C-21 will either ban hunting rifles or that it will allow the Prime Minister to ban hunting rifles.
It would be one or the other in the best of all possible worlds. The truth is, it is neither.
I would still like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the second part. If I understand the Conservatives' argument correctly, until Bill C-21 is passed, it is impossible to ban guns by order in council.
I would like him to explain how the government managed to ban guns by order in council before Bill C-21.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 9:58:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague from Winnipeg North has to say about this. Tonight, people in the House keep complaining that the Conservatives do not understand the bill. In fact, they understand it very well, but they are twisting it, saying that the government is going to ban hunters' guns. However, if the government had done the job properly from the start and consulted with hunting groups, rather than moving forward with a bad bill that banned hunting rifles, we might not be in this position.
Would my colleague agree that we would not be where we are tonight, or at least, not so far down this path, if the government had done its job properly from the start rather than leaving bogus arguments as low-hanging fruit for the Conservatives to take advantage of?
141 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 11:29:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are certainly legal gun owners who have concerns. Any time we talk about a certain restriction on guns, some people may not like that policy. It may not be my hon. colleague opposite, but certainly his colleagues, because I have heard them, drive some of that narrative and that fear. Every time a Conservative stands and says the government is going after hunting rifles, people sitting at home who do not watch this place see a Facebook post or some type of graphic that goes out on social media. No wonder they are angry or scared. The opposition drives a narrative that is simply not the case.
If Conservatives stood and said they do not believe that handguns should be banned in this country, full stop, which they did today by voting that this should be walked back completely, that is fine. They can lead on that, but they should not lead on issues that are not true. That is what frustrates me. We should not get to a place where we drive narratives that are simply not true. My speech today reflected a reality of where I stand on this bill, where there are limitations and where there are problems. I did not try to sugar-coat it. However, members should stop driving stuff that is not true. That is the frustration in terms of what goes forward.
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 11:46:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have the floor, and I am standing. I think that highlights the Liberal philosophy quite well. The common sense is lacking.
The common people of this country know what this bill does. This bill goes after hunting rifles that have been used safely across Canada. This is a frustration of Canadians. I am sure they are calling other members' offices. They are calling my office. I am meeting with people.
Conservatives do not support the confiscation of other people's property. This is what this bill would ultimately do. There is the Liberal firearms advisory committee that would do what the Liberals wanted to do with earlier amendments. It is clear that this panel would do the bidding of the Liberal government. We have seen this time after time. The Liberals try to do things through the front door, and if that does not work, they go through the back door. This is how they are bringing it in.
The Liberals are saying there are no firearms that would be banned by this legislation. However, it would appoint the Liberal firearms advisory committee. Who appoints it? It is the order in council. I wonder who they might put on that. Would that be a panel of experts who view the world how the Liberals view it? I wonder. A special rapporteur would figure this out, I am sure.
There is a whole bunch of things that could be improved in this bill. Obviously, with our track record in this country on violent crimes, we are on the wrong path. We need to fix the justice system. We need to have jail not bail. We need to have common-sense rules that govern our country. We will never have that until we defeat the Liberal-NDP coalition and get common sense back in this country.
I am fearful of the consequences if we continue down this path with individuals who pretend to have the best interests of the country at heart, but when flawed legislation such as this is brought forward, it brings up questions. If Liberals really want to lower crime, why are they going after Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle? There is no good answer. This is virtue signalling from the Liberals that they are somehow going to tackle violent crime by going after Grandpa Joe.
We know that it will not work. What is really frustrating is that we need sensible measures that get the criminals off the streets.
414 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to close out debate this evening on Bill C-21, and it is an honour, as always, to stand in this House and represent the constituents from the great riding of Fundy Royal who elected me. Many of those constituents enjoy hunting, farming and sport shooting and maybe have inherited a firearm from a relative. Hunting in my riding certainly is something many people like to partake in and enjoy.
What is the problem we are trying to go after? It is gun violence. What the facts tell us is that 80% of the firearms used in violent crime are illegal. What are some of the figures? Violent crime is up 32% in Canada in the last eight years. Gang-related violent crime, the stuff Canadians are talking about, seeing in the news and hearing about in their local newspaper, is up almost 100% in the last eight years. What about crimes that are committed with firearms? Eighty per cent of the firearms used in violent crime are obtained illegally. We have an illegal firearms problem in Canada.
What is the solution when we have an illegal firearms problem? We should go after the illegal firearms. The last thing we should do is spend valuable resources going after law-abiding, licensed firearms owners in this country. However, we should not be surprised that this is the approach the government took. We have to remember this is the same Liberal government that brought in Bill C-68, or the long gun registry, and that spent, according to the Auditor General, over $1 billion registering the firearms of law-abiding Canadians while having no impact on crime.
It is the same government that brought in Bill C-5. What did Bill C-5 do? I mentioned that we have a problem with illegal firearms. Bill C-5, which was introduced and passed under the current government, repealed mandatory prison penalties for many firearms offences. They include robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking. These are the types of offences that Canadians would expect someone convicted to go to jail for. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 removed mandatary jail sentences for those crimes, so we are not going after the illegal guns and we are not going after the criminals.
The figures should get the attention of all members, no matter what side of the aisle they are on. In Toronto alone, one half of murder suspects this year are out on some type of release. In 17 of 44 homicides in Toronto last year, the individual was out on bail. We have a major problem in this country when it comes to gang-related violence and firearms violence with the revolving door, the catch-and-release, of our bail system.
The government had an opportunity with this bill to tackle some of those things. Instead, what it did is went after everyday, law-abiding Canadians, the type of Canadians I represent in my riding of Fundy Royal.
As parliamentarians, we need to take the issues that confront us in this country seriously. This bill does not do that. The government showed its hand when it brought it an amendment that would have banned all kinds of hunting rifles, rifles that have been in families for generations. These are not the problem. Law-abiding Canadians are not the problem. Licensed firearms owners are not the problem. Spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to buy back and confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens is not the solution.
When this bill is fully implemented, Canadians will not be one bit safer. Until we have the courage to tackle the revolving door of catch-and-release bail and until we have the courage to say that those who do serious crimes are going to get a jail sentence, we will continue to have these problems in Canada. We need to leave law-abiding people alone and go after the bad guys, and that is what the Conservatives will do.
673 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
