44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member in my caucus if she could perhaps expand on how we got to the point where Bill C-21 is now being debated today. It started with the OIC, the initial version of Bill C-21, which provided complete misinformation by the minister and made wild accusations against firearms owners.
I would like to hear her talk about the journey it took to get to this point, in May 2023, where we are still debating this bill and it still has very deep flaws in it.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, you have made a ruling, and members have been given wide latitude by Chair occupants in the past to go back into their speech that they have prewritten, where they have made annotations for themselves. The member is referring, obviously, to a court case. He has a point that he is trying to make. If that other member would just let him finish his point, I am sure he will carry on to the rest of the business that he wants to do.
I hear members laughing across the way, but they are given the same latitude to speak to bills. We all bring notes into the House to make a speech.
You have made a ruling, Mr. Speaker, so we should just carry on with the debate on Bill C-21.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, with apologies for prolonging this debate, again, members have been given wide latitude in the House to refer to past votes that have been taken in the House. Member after member has been in the House and has done so year after year. It has never been an issue until right now, when that particular member has a disagreement with the contents of a speech that another member is trying to give in the House.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, perhaps many members do not know this, but that particular member is a long-serving member of the RCMP, specifically from the Special I division. If anybody here is speaking from a place of authority, it actually would be this particular member who just spoke. I wonder if he could expand on his personal experiences as a police officer and give his opinion on whether Bill C-21 would be able to save the lives of officers in the future.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining this debate at this late hour. I have been sitting through many hours of debate on this particular subject of Bill C-21.
I will begin by thanking constituents again for returning me to Parliament. It has been a few years now since the election, but I am thankful every single day that I can represent them in this House. Part of my thanks for them will be that I am going to read into the record later many of the emails I have received with respect to Bill C-21 from hunters and sport shooters who are upset that the government is continuing on with Bill C-21.
I want to begin, though, with a quote from someone I consider an expert on firearms legislation, Dr. Teri Bryant, Alberta's chief firearms officer:
Even after the withdrawal of G-4 and G-46, Bill C-21 continues to undermine confidence in our firearms control system while contributing nothing to reducing the violent misuse of firearms. Bill C-21 is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. Prohibiting specific types of firearms is not an effective way of improving public safety. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been used on more effective approaches, such as the enforcement of firearms prohibition orders, reinforcing the border or combatting the drug trade and gang activity.
That is just common-sense Alberta right there from a well-known Albertan, for many of us.
The original definition of a firearm, or what I will call the old definition used by the government, was: “...a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed,...”.
That original definition alone was in proposed clause G-4, and I have rarely seen so many emails received in my constituency office, that were written by people who were upset that they were being targeted after having done nothing. They were simply sport shooters and hunters who, through no fault of their own, were being targeted by the Minister of Public Safety. Now the Liberals have changed the definition to something new.
It says now, “It would include a firearm that is not a handgun...”, and I draw attention to “not a handgun”. It continues, “...in a semi-automatic manner and that was originally designed with a detachable magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more.”
I will note also that in the French version of the legislation they have dropped the reference to fusil de chasse, and now are using a very odd wording that looks like bad French maybe, but fusil de chasse for most francophones anywhere would mean hunting rifle, which is what the Prime Minister said was the intent of Bill C-21. It was exactly to go after hunters. He himself said, outside of the House, that some hunters would have to lose their hunting rifles. That was the purpose of Bill C-21.
I go on now to some of the comments made by my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, again drawing attention of people to comments made by the public safety minister. I have more to expand on that, too. He called into question the fact that in the future, they will have to do something about “permanent alteration of magazines”. Now, permanent alteration to magazines of any sort would go a step further than what is being done now and would impact many firearms.
I want to draw attention of the House to the fact that changing magazines would also require changes to a firearm like the Lee-Enfield, a very popular British firearm until about the 1950s. It was used broadly in World War I. It is a firearm widely used in Canada by many indigenous hunters. Many hunters in my riding have these firearms that were passed down through generations. Requiring them to alter that magazine would basically destroy the firearm. That is something the public safety minister is musing publicly. When I see other members of different parties say to trust them and it is written in the legislation, why would we trust them? Why should any hunter or any sport shooter trust them? There are 2.3 million firearms owners in Canada. Why should any of them trust what the Liberals have said so far?
I will draw attention to one more fact that kind of disturbs me. It is that the public safety minister, when Bill C-21 first came in, said there was a public safety crisis across Canada. He said that there were these “assault-style rifles” and then said it was a public emergency that Bill C-21 needed to be passed right away. Now in this legislation, months and months later after so much public blowback, the Liberals are grandfathering all previous firearms. Therefore, now it is okay to have these so-called by his own words assault-style rifles and now they are grandfathered in. They are not affected; only future firearms are affected. It is actually a point that has been made by several members of the Bloc and by the New Democrats as well that it is only future firearms that have not been manufactured yet, and hunters should be satisfied with that.
One, two or three generations from now, these firearms will get older, break down, be lost or damaged through use or misuse or simply be sold off due to families not wanting to keep them anymore because there is so much licensing involved. The Liberals are talking about the future. There will be a dwindling number of hunters, and the intention of the government is to dwindle them down. The public safety minister claimed there was this crisis going on, that we must seize these firearms from lawful firearms owners, that they should be taken away from hunters, and now, suddenly, we do not have this crisis. Now it is suddenly okay. Now they are grandfathered. I find that interesting. Constituents pointed it out to me.
More seriously, though, a member is a former member of the RCMP, in I Division. We used to joke in our caucus that decades ago, if we heard a cough at the end of our analog phone line, it was probably I Division listening in. The member was an RCMP officer. I was looking at the statistics for how many peace officers and police officers have been killed. In the past 20 years, 40 police officers and peace officers have been killed in the line of duty, 11 in the last 30 months and eight in the last nine months.
The reason we are going down this dark path is government legislation that has been passed since 2015. Bill C-21 is trying to make up for the errors the Liberals have made in criminal justice legislation, from Bill C-75 that hybridized a bunch of offences to Bill C-5. In Bill C-5, they changed things like extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting, knowing the firearm is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, including things like drive-by shootings, possession of a firearm, knowing its possession is unauthorized or illegally possessing a firearm. None of those have mandatory prison time any longer. The offenders serve their time at home if the judge determines that is appropriate.
I have a Yiddish proverb, before I read some thoughts from my constituents, who are my bosses. The proverb is, “The truth comes out like oil on water.” It percolates right to the top. I have been listening to the speeches and interventions by different members so far in this House. Again, we were told by the public safety minister that there was an urgent public safety crisis on our streets with these Black Stock firearms that should be taken off our streets, and now, suddenly, they are all grandfathered in. That has now become a talking point with some members. Something has changed. What has changed is low polling numbers and bad emails from upset constituents.
I will read some emails from my constituents, but I will only use their first names because I do not want the government to go after them. Ryan said, “Today, the federal Liberal government and their disgusting coalition with the federal NDP, as well as the Bloc, shut down the possibility of any further debate around their proposed amendments to C-21. The plan moving forward will be to appoint a meaningless panel that will essentially prohibit any firearm that they see fit.” A wise man is this Ryan. He knows exactly where this is going with this so-called firearms advisory committee. He went on to say, “All whilst completely disregarding the long heritage and tradition of firearms in Canada. This is a vicious slap in the face to the millions of responsible PAL and RPAL holders in Canada.”
I should probably disclose to Ryan and other constituents that I do not have a PAL or an RPAL, but I do appreciate the fact that they have a right to hunt and sharp shoot.
Christina and Maury said, “Considering the unethical and unconstitutional implementation of Bill C-21 originally, I would suggest that the bill be scrapped in its entirety.” Terence said, “Stop motion on Bill C-21.” Matthew said, “I'm not asking to kill the bill but vote against the Liberals' motion to ram the bill through the House without proper representation and debate.”
Craig said, “What the Liberals are doing is not democratic or constitutional. As a law-abiding firearms owner I feel insulted this bill is before us in the first place. We are not the issue, the criminals are the issue and yet it feels like they are getting a free pass.” Darren said, “This federal government is circumventing democratic and parliamentary due process and it must be stopped.” Another Matthew said, “I want it also to be known that I strongly oppose bills C-11, C-15 and C-21.”
When the general public knows the numbers of the bills, we know that there is a problem. We know that the oil has floated up to the top of the water, and the common-sense Canadian is seeing that Bill C-21 makes no sense.
An email from Brian said, “Like the many law-abiding hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous peoples in this country I feel betrayed [by the Liberal government].” Pat said, “It will cost taxpayers upwards of a billion dollars, money that would be better spent on increased monitoring of our borders to prevent gun trafficking.” Lee-Ann said, “Those of us who own guns have gone through training and vetting to be able to legally purchase and own these guns. We are responsible members of society who are being unfairly penalized because of leftist ideology, and it needs to be stopped.”
1883 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to respond to that ridiculous question, the only lobbyists I care about are my constituents who are lobbying me to vote against Bill C-21. So let us continue. George wrote, “I am tired of being lied to about licensed gun owners being the cause of firearm-related violence.... I am losing my firearms based on this new law and its amendments. I will never vote for them or their party if they don't withdraw C-21 in its entirety.”
Ryan wrote, “I am writing you this email to let you know how against this bill me and family are. I am a 45-year-old man who has been raised on wild meat all my life. I started hunting with my family when I was a child. Every year we go out and get meat for our families and we do so with our firearms. I have done this for over 30 years. I am a law-abiding citizen, a small business owner, a father and a provider. Now, am I going to become a criminal because of this bill?”
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, alas, I do not have any constituents who wrote to me in French so that I could read what they think of this bill. I do want to remind him that the member for Rivière-du-Nord said, when Bill C‑21 came out, that they could not have done better. It is therefore completely ridiculous to hear some members now brag about having worked hard when they agreed with the Liberals' bill.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am a little worried in the way the member just described my constituents who are emailing me on this issue. They deserve to be heard, not to be name-called. They are concerned not because of what we are saying on this side of the House; they are concerned because the contents of the legislation is bad news for them.
I do not need to go around in my constituency raising up fears. They are fearful on their own. I have had many meetings on Bill C-21 and firearms legislation in the past six to eight months from constituents who do not reach out to me on a regular basis. I invite the member to come out to my riding, an urban Calgary riding, where this is the second most important issue. They deserve to be read into the record.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
