44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
- May/16/23 10:09:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the things I find most interesting about this whole debate, whether it is Bill C-21 or anything related to guns, is that the Conservative Party members consistently spread misinformation and they do that in order to generate funds for their political party, literally millions of dollars over the year. That is the primary reason for the spreading of misinformation that we see.
My concern or my question for the member is this: Does he not see the benefit in terms of having legislation that would make our communities safer? When will the Conservative Party put the safety of our community ahead of Conservative fundraising?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will get a chance to expand upon this, but members should not try to fool anyone who is following this particular debate. The Conservative Party of Canada has consistently spread misinformation, whether it has been by trying to give the impression to hunters that we are after their guns, or whether it has been on indigenous rights. I believe it is being done intentionally for one reason, and that is to raise funds.
The question I would put to the member opposite is the same question I asked his colleague: When will the Conservative Party put the safety of Canadians ahead of raising money for its political party?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-21. It is important for us to recognize that often legislation, like the budget, is brought into the chamber that is a reflection of what Canadians expect of the Government of Canada.
Leger did a poll regarding the manner in which the Government of Canada is moving toward the issue of gun control. There were 84% of Canadians who feel that this government is on the right track when it comes to gun control and the legislation being brought forward.
I would like to quote an article. The headline is, “MCC report calls for stricter gun laws”, and it states, “The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead makes several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada’s gun laws.” This is significant.
The commission is a non-partisan body. The chair of the commission, Michael MacDonald, is a retired Nova Scotia chief justice and the other commissioners are Leanne Fitch, who served for seven years as the chief of police for Fredericton Police Force, and Kim Stanton, a lawyer and legal scholar. Many recommendations called for stricter gun laws. This was earlier this year. The article went on to say, “The commission also determined that the safety of women survivors of intimate-partner violence is 'put at risk by the presence of firearms and ammunition in the household.'“
One of the Conservative members was critical of the red flag. When I think of the red flag component of the legislation, I think of a domestic abuse victim having to be put into a position where the spouse is a gun owner. Under the red flag now, this individual would be able to raise the issue in court and have the person's name kept off the record. I see that as a positive thing. If not directly, indirectly the commission refers to that. Those are the types of things in the legislation.
We hear members talk about ghost guns, something very real. If we were to check with law enforcement agencies from coast to coast to coast, we would find there is concern about the growing appetite to produce these ghost guns. We need this legislation. It would assist law enforcement officers to deal with this very serious issue. Let us think about it. A 3-D printer and someone with a mischievous criminal mind are a bad combination. The legislation before us would deal with that.
I want to pick up on a question that I posed to members opposite, because I really do believe that the Conservative Party's primary motivation in opposing this legislation is not because of gun owners, but because of the way Conservatives have manipulated the issue to the degree that they have raised millions of dollars for their party over the years. It is somewhat ironic when we stop and think about it. When the gun registry, for example, came into being, it was actually a Conservative idea. A Conservative senator brought it to Kim Campbell and Kim Campbell moved forward with it. She was a Progressive Conservative prime minister, and I underline the word “progressive”.
The current Conservative Party has abandoned that word. It has taken such a hard right turn. The other day, someone sent me a Twitter feed of the current leader of the Conservative Party. I could not believe it. Do we want to talk about motivation to run in elections, feeding conspiracy theories? It is totally amazing how far-fetched the leader of the Conservative Party is. He is in the non-reality zone, if I could put it that way, absolutely fact-free.
If we take a look at the gun issue, I genuinely believe that the Conservative Party is using this legislation as a mechanism to continue to spread information that just is not true. The member says, well, what kind of information? Trying to give hunters the impression that the government is after their guns: it is hard to believe. It is not true. We are not. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but we would not know based on some of the social media postings that we hear about coming from the Conservative Party.
At the end of the day, whether it is issues such as the gun registry from many years ago or other types of legislation that have come forward, the far right within the Conservative Party wants to use anything and everything that it can feed to that grouping of people in order to generate funds.
I think that when we listen to some of the reports that have come out, like I cited at the very beginning with the MCC, an apolitical, non-partisan commission, a commission that everyone supported, the report that it came forward with is very clear.
If we take a look at the information that we received from Canadians as a whole, such as, as I say, the Leger poll, 84% are saying we are on the right track.
When we talk about gun crimes, we have actually seen a decrease by 5% between 2020 and 2021.
Unlike the Conservative Party, we are after illegal guns that are coming up from the United States. Last year, 1,200 guns and tens of thousands of weapons were seized at the border. I will compare that to any year of Stephen Harper.
It is a combination of things that this government is doing to make our communities safer when it comes to gun violence, whether it is budget measures, supporting our border control officers, providing supports for law enforcement officers or enhancing the tools that are going to make a difference.
These are all the types of actions that this government has taken in response to what we know Canadians are genuinely concerned about.
I would suggest that my Conservative friends need to put the safety and concerns of Canadians ahead of political party financing and fundraising, to look in the mirror and understand the true value of this legislation, which is supported by all members, except for the Conservative members, I must say, and get behind it.
This is a good opportunity for them to take a flip-flop and support this legislation. By supporting this legislation, they would be telling Canadians that they support safer communities. They support legislation that is going to make a positive difference.
That is a powerful message and, coincidence would have it, it is factual and it would be nice to see coming from the Conservative Party.
1113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member just made my point. He is giving a false impression. He is trying to say to farmers, hunters and indigenous people that we are going to take away their guns. That is balderdash. That is not the case.
Does the member not realize that he is doing a great disservice to the whole debate, a debate that Canadians from coast to coast are concerned about? They want safer communities. This legislation would provide safer communities.
On the record, in terms of rural versus urban, the member might note that I periodically get the chance to stand up and address legislation. I always welcome that. I never look at it as an urban-rural split. I like to think that I am very sensitive to all rural issues. It is one of the reasons I spend a lot of time talking about agricultural issues.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, right off, I would mention the issue of ghost guns. That is a growing issue that has been raised by law enforcement officers all over the country. I believe this is a great attempt to deal with that specific issue.
I want to pick up on the member's comments that there has been a great deal of co-operation, in good part because of the NDP and the Bloc. We have seen stronger, healthier legislation than when it was first introduced. It goes to show that if the opposition works with the government and the government works with the opposition, we can have better legislation. We do appreciate that support.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a sense of urgency to the legislation. One of the reasons it is going to be able to pass is because of the support of the New Democrats to bring in the time allocation that will be necessary.
The Conservative Party of Canada has made it very clear that Conservative members will not support it; they will go out of their way to ensure that this legislation never sees the light of day. Without the support of at least one opposition party, the Liberal government would not be able to get the legislation passed, because we need time allocation. Otherwise, the legislation would not pass because of the commitment by the Conservative Party not to see it pass.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments that the member has put on the record, but I would like to emphasize that, as a government, it is more than just the legislation. She expresses a little bit of disappointment. Maybe I can give her some words of encouragement.
We have seen, for example, a very high number of guns being confiscated at the border in the year before. I would suggest that this was probably one of the higher years of gun confiscations that we have seen, maybe, in the last decade-plus. I think that we have seen budgetary measures that support our border controls, as well as enhancements for law enforcement officers. There has been the legislation that we are talking about today. I think that, for the first time in a long time, we actually have a government that understands the issue, and 84% of Canadians, through a Leger poll, are indicating that the Government of Canada is on the right track.
Could she provide her thoughts in regard to the overall approach of the government in dealing with this very serious issue?
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 6:15:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you might find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so we could continue the debate on Bill C-21.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the member is voting against this legislation, Bill C-21.
In Bill C-21, we see the issue of ghost guns being addressed. Police agencies, virtually across Canada, have expressed a growing issue with ghost guns. They look at the legislation from that perspective as an important tool. I said this earlier, but it is interesting that the Conservatives tend to want to use Bill C-21 as a fundraising issue as opposed to an issue to provide a higher sense of security for Canadians.
Why do the Conservatives not support the ghost gun aspect of the legislation? Why do they not support making our communities safer?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, talk about conspiracy theories. Over the weekend, the leader of the Conservative Party was talking about passports. Colleagues would not believe how weird that discussion got. The more I listened to him, the more I wondered if this guy is real. Can the leader of the official opposition really be that much of a conspiracist?
Then I hear one of his inner circle members of Parliament deliver a speech that kind of blew me away. If one wants to motivate people to ensure that the Conservatives never get into government, one can have them listen to the tweet from the leader of the Conservative Party and this member's speech.
Can the member indicate how she can justify this when the Conservative Party of Canada is espousing all sorts of misinformation, almost on a daily basis, not only on this legislation? How does she justify saying that we are spreading misinformation when the degree to which the Conservatives are using this legislation to raise money is fairly well documented? It is not about concern over Canadians' safety.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the rule is that quorum cannot be called. It does not say how many members are in the chamber or in the MPs' lounges. It could be a large number, or it could be a smaller number. It is just that we cannot call quorum.
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of comments that the member expressed. I wanted to highlight that it is great to see that Bill C-21 is being supported by the Bloc and the New Democrats. We have seen amendments that have been brought forward. It is good, healthy and stronger legislation as a direct result. It is a little bit more than the legislation, which is good.
One of the interesting stats that I heard about had to do with border crossings as 1,200 illegal guns were acquired last year, in addition to 73,000 other weapons. Would the member not agree that it is good we bring forward legislation such as this through budgetary measures to support our law enforcement officers so that they are better equipped and supported in dealing with getting illegal guns off the street?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is disappointing in terms of the Conservative Party's overall approach to Bill C-21. As I indicated earlier this afternoon, the Conservative Party seems to be more concerned about raising money with Bill C-21 than it is about delivering safety to our communities. A good example of that is how this legislation would have the red flags and would deal with ghost guns. These are the types of things that would have a very positive impact, but the Conservatives say they are not going to support this legislation, because they want to raise money. That is more important. Can the member indicate to the House when the Conservative Party is going to recognize that the safety of Canadians is more important than raising money for the Conservative Party?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned common sense. Last year, and I mentioned this earlier, there were 1,200 guns taken away from borders. There were 73,000 weapons seized at the border. This is a government that has actually invested in our border controls. We can contrast that with Stephen Harper's time, when there were actually cutbacks. Was there ever a year, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when he received even half of the 1,200 guns and 73,000 weapons that we received last year? I suspect the answer is no, but I would be interested in what the member has to say on it.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the fact that there are some very progressive measures in the legislation, including one around ghost guns. Law enforcement agencies have talked a great deal about how this is becoming an issue of a very serious nature, and they are looking for legislation. We are attempting, in the legislation, to provide that tool to law enforcement, and it is being well received.
What does the member have to say about that aspect? Could the member provide some sense of why the Conservatives continue to say that this legislation would prevent people from being able to hunt, or to give that sort of impression, when we know it is just not the case?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what is very clear from the member is that the Conservative Party is responding more to the gun lobbyists. He cites constituents and says he will give their first names, but not the last names because he does not want the government to attack them in any fashion. There is this whole fear factor that the Conservative Party continues to spread with misinformation, as if hunters, indigenous people and other law-abiding gun owners are going to be attacked by this legislation, when it is just not true.
Why do the Conservatives continue to spread misinformation when they know many of the things they are saying are just not true?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the spreading of misinformation. I will refer to the most recent Conservative speaker, who indicated, for example, that there is an airsoft ban. Well, there is no airsoft ban. That has been changed, and the Conservatives know that, yet they still talk about an airsoft ban. The member also made reference to ghost guns not being dealt with, citing a specific letter. Again, ghost guns are being dealt with in the legislation.
What we hear consistently from the Conservative Party is misinformation. This is not an attack on the hunters, the farmers and indigenous people. I wonder if the member could provide a comment on what she believes is the damage caused by the spreading of misinformation.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is wrong to make the assertion he is alleging that this gun registration, or attack on guns, would affect our hunters, farmers and indigenous people. It is just wrong to say that those guns are going to be taken away. The information the Conservatives are putting out there is definitely misleading, and I am being kind in my wording.
There are some benefits within the legislation. I have made reference to one, and I will continue to do so. Ghost guns are a serious issue across Canada. This is a wonderful step forward in dealing with that issue. Could the member clearly indicate what parts of the legislation he does support, if any at all.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not believe it is appropriate for a member of the chamber to give such a verbal attack on another member. All members in the House are hon. members, and I do request that the member reflect on what he said, do the honourable thing and apologize.
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
