44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, my colleague says that Bill C‑21 is the biggest attack on Canadian hunters ever. Unfortunately, I do not know if he has read the bill as amended in committee last week, but no hunting weapons will be prohibited if this bill is passed. The new definition of prohibited weapons is prospective. It will apply to future weapons, ones that do not yet exist. I do not know why some people are still trying to scare hunters.
My colleague also said that mass murderers in Canada do not use hunting rifles, that they do not use them in shooting sprees. I would remind him that the SKS, which I am sure he is familiar with, is widely used in Canada for hunting. It is especially popular in indigenous communities because it is affordable. I would respectfully remind him that an SKS was recently used to kill two Ontario police officers.
Perhaps we should stop scaring hunters. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, hunting rifles are not in Bill C‑21.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, at first, she fully supported Bill C-21. She even felt that Bill C-21 did not go far enough.
Then, at some point, she saw people everywhere on social media saying that the bill had missed the mark and that it would be dangerous for hunters. That struck fear in the hearts of the Bloc Québécois, and because of pressure from the Conservatives, the Bloc was forced to sit down with the NDP and the Liberals to get back to work.
That is why we, Conservatives, will always be there to stand up for hunters and sport shooters when the other parties want nothing to do with them.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since we are at the report stage of the bill, I wanted to ask my Conservative colleague about a Conservative amendment to the bill at report stage.
Under Motion No. 12, the Conservatives are seeking to completely delete clause 43. Does my colleague realize that this is the only clause in this bill that provides exemptions to the handgun freeze? Why are Conservatives getting rid of exemptions for anyone who has an authorization to carry and to anyone who is training for the Olympic or Paralympic committee? Why do they believe in getting rid of this clause of the bill?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very good question.
I can tell him one thing. We heard an Olympian testify at committee. She is involved in sport shooting. She said that she would no longer be able to play the sport she loves so much because the exemptions are very limited.
I would like to tell my colleague that, right now, Olympic athletes are allowed to play their sport. However, before they can go to the Olympics, they have to be able to practise that sport. With this bill, they will no longer be able to practise. Consequently, we will no longer be able to send our athletes to the Olympic Games.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord said something interesting in answer to the question from the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. He said that the Bloc Québécois did its job because of pressure from social media and the Conservatives. I am pleased to hear that today.
What the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is telling us is that the Bloc Québécois did its job and improved the bill so that hunters would not have problems because of the Liberals' bill, which was basically bad.
I simply want to thank the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for saying that the Bloc Québécois did its job on the bill and solved a problem for hunters. I thank him for that. That is what a party for the regions does.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean is clearly a team player. He is defending his colleague on this.
However, I want to make one thing clear. The Bloc Québécois went and did its job because it knew it was going to lose votes in the regions and it would not get re-elected. That is why the Bloc members ended up doing their work. In reality, they thought that Bill C-21 did not go far enough, and they do not want anything to do with firearms.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak to legislation, which, in this circumstance, is flawed, and to defend the people in my riding and across the country who believe the same thing.
The Liberals and the NDP missed the mark on Bill C-21 right from the very beginning. They should have spent their time focused on criminals and ending the revolving door of justice. Instead, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc turned their backs on hunters, sport shooters and law-abiding firearm owners, and insisted on steamrolling the democratic process. Democracy thrives on debate and discussion, on the exchanges of ideas and the ability of all parliamentarians to have their say, even if other parliamentarians do not want to hear it. If government members do not want to hear me in committee, they are going to hear me now.
This legislation would result in the freeze of lawfully owned handguns and a ban on many firearms used for hunting and sport shooting. It would target law-abiding firearm owners across the country, not criminals. That is the issue. I have been actively and loudly opposed to Bill C-21, which started, as I said, as the Liberal government's proposed legislation to ban handguns. Based on my experience in policing, I can confidently say it is a deeply flawed and misguided piece of legislation. One of the main reasons I oppose the bill is that it is based on a false Liberal premise that a ban on handguns is necessary to reduce gun violence in Canada, but the evidence clearly shows that law-abiding firearm owners are not and have never been the cause of gun violence in this country. In fact, almost all gun crimes are committed by criminals who use illegal firearms that have been smuggled in from the United States.
When it was debated in the House, Bill C-21 did not include any restrictions, potential restrictions or even the mention of long guns, only handguns. However, at committee, the government decided to introduce amendments known as G-4 and G-46, completely out of scope for the bill's original intent. The amendments were terrible and were focused squarely on hunters and legal, law-abiding firearm owners. Their implementation would have been useless to prevent gun crime, and did not include any prior consultations of any kind. We all know what happened next. The push-back from Canadians and the Conservatives overwhelmed the Liberals, who were then forced to withdraw these amendments. How did that occur? It was because the democratic process was allowed to occur. The committee was able to do its work on behalf of all Canadians. Committees are supposed to debate, hear from witnesses, weed out bad ideas and come to common-sense decisions. We would have had the chance to do just that, and do it again with the rest of Bill C-21, if the government truly valued democracy.
Furthermore, during the questioning of government witnesses on these amendments, it was identified that the decision to make these changes was made at a political level. That means that it was not recommended by bureaucrats or policy specialists. This is a clear indication that the Liberal Party is more interested in scoring political points than in implementing effective policies to reduce gun violence. This is not how a democracy is supposed to work. We need to get back to the principles of parliamentary democracy, where every voice is heard, every opinion is considered and every decision is made with the best interests of Canadians at heart.
However, this is not just about principles or the Liberals' lack of them when it comes to democracy. It is also about the impact that this legislation would have on law-abiding firearm owners across the country. These are individuals who have followed the rules, who have gone through the necessary background checks and training and who have been responsible stewards of their firearms, but instead of focusing on criminals and illegal firearms, the Liberal government is targeting law-abiding firearm owners, threatening their ability to hunt, sport shoot and lawfully own firearms.
What may be lost in some of the speeches today is that Bill C-21 is a legislative mess. It is filled with large legislative changes, and introduces items like red-flag laws that would have negative impacts on those seeking assistance to escape from an abusive partner, for example. As PolySeSouvient put it on Twitter, “Despite opposition from coalition of women’s groups, @ndp...supports @liberal_party ex-parte/red flag measure inviting victims to go to court instead of police doing their job. @BlocQuebecois & @CPC_HQ rightly vote against.” These red-flag measures completely miss the mark on improving public safety and actually put victims at greater risk. Over 20 women's groups have reached out to the government and told it to stop. It refused and did not listen.
Bill C-21 makes up words like “military-style assault weapon” without definition, which the chief firearms officer of Alberta agrees is absolutely ludicrous. The Minister of Public Safety testified that he was relying on the committee to come up with a definition to the senseless, uneducated use of that term. The bill speaks of the creation of a Canadian firearms advisory committee that is supposed to provide pragmatic advice on Canadian firearm classifications and regulations. This is just another nifty clause in Bill C-21 that we had five minutes to debate. Just who would sit on this new committee? Would it be gunsmiths, firearm experts and chief firearm officers from across the country, or would it be the well-connected friends of the Liberals and their social justice lawyers who know nothing about firearms, who do not understand the traditions of hunting and sport shooting, have never received PAL or RPAL training, and simply do the bidding of the Liberals?
These are legitimate concerns, but instead of proper debate, we had only minutes. It is simply unacceptable. It is an assault on the values and traditions that have made Canada the great country it is today, and it is a betrayal of the trust Canadians have placed in their elected representatives to uphold the democratic process. The government should work with stakeholders and experts in the firearms community to develop effective policies that actually protect Canadians while respecting their differences of opinion and traditional lifestyles. Instead of working with stakeholders and experts, the Liberal government used a programming motion to fast-track legislation that would have serious consequences for law-abiding firearm owners. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. Democracy, including parliamentary committees and the legislative process, is supposed to be messy. It is non-linear. Sometimes governments do not get the results they want, but MPs should always have the opportunity to advocate and fight on behalf of their constituents.
Conservatives stand with law-abiding firearm owners, demanding they be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. We demand that the government focus on real solutions to the issue of illegal firearms rather than targeting law-abiding Canadians who have done nothing wrong and we demand that our democracy be respected, that our voices be heard and that our elected representatives be held accountable for their actions. As Conservatives, we believe the government should be accountable to the people. That includes taking the time to fully debate and scrutinize legislation. We are not against progress, but we are against rushing through legislation without the proper scrutiny. This is why we will continue to fight for law-abiding firearm owners, and we will continue to oppose any government that uses programming motions to rush through legislation without proper scrutiny. The use of programming motions is a threat to our democracy. Conservatives support common-sense firearms policies that keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals. When we form government, creating effective policies to reduce gun violence will be a priority. Our focus will be bringing back serious sentences for repeat offenders, which were repealed by the Liberals, and reversing the government's revolving door of justice. We will invest in policing and our secure border, rather than spending billions of dollars confiscating firearms from law-abiding Canadians.
Bill C-21 has missed the mark and is simply political rhetoric. The NDP and the Liberals have steamrolled democracy, and if Bill C-21 passes at report stage or third reading, we too will have failed Canadians. My hope is that the other place will do its job well, scrutinize this bill fully and return it to the House with the many amendments it requires, or gut it completely.
1456 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know my colleague spoke about bail reform and the issues we have seen come up lately. We have introduced a comprehensive bill to address bail reform, especially when dealing with violent offenders. I am wondering if the member opposite can confirm whether the Conservative Party will fast-track this bill and give us unanimous consent to move it forward to the other place?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I read the bill this morning and was shocked at its lack of understanding of the total issue. If we look at what is actually being proposed in the legislation, it barely begins to scratch the surface of the issues affecting Canadians with the violence in our communities.
If we look at the restrictions placed on the types of offences that are going to be covered, it is a start. With Bill C-75, the Liberals were warned to begin with about what exactly it was going to cause and were told to stop it. They did not, and now they have to backtrack and try to fix it.
It does not go far enough. It is a beginning, and it certainly is not something that I can support in its entirety. It needs a lot more work.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague. He knows how the study of Bill C‑21 went in committee. He was there. He understands the concept of a consequential amendment. There were several of them for the government's ghost guns amendments. There were some on my amendment for the magazines. A valid possession and acquisition licence is now required for buying a magazine and ammunition. I was very pleased to see that there was unanimity on this. The Conservative Party was in favour of this measure. It is a good measure.
That is how it was, except for a consequential amendment. At some point, my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe got carried away and said that it made no sense to stop a hunter who is getting ready to hunt a rare bird, if his licence is not valid because he is missing a magazine. The official who was there gently reminded him that if the licence is not valid, he could not go hunting, he could not use his gun. Despite that, the Conservatives voted against this amendment.
I would like my colleague to explain why.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too have enjoyed working with my colleague from the Bloc on the public safety committee off and on for a couple years. I have always generally appreciated her approach to and understanding of some of the legislation we deal with.
The Conservatives did support legislation that attempted to curtail what we call ghost guns. It is something that law enforcement has called for across the country. We knew the government was going to fast-track this bill, and the NDP were going to support it no matter what. However, at least we could try to work with other opposition parties to provide some amendments that were going to be helpful for public safety. Addressing some of the issues of ghost guns would do exactly that.
My understanding of that is that Canadians are able to acquire magazines or gun parts for use in ghost guns. We needed to start somewhere, so the Conservatives did support some of these amendments simply because we wanted to ensure that the bill before us was better than what the Liberals were presenting.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was listening to the member's speech and he was talking about a confiscation program. I do not know how much that is going to cost. Maybe it is $1 billion or $2 billion. I do not know if there is a figure out there.
Does the member think that money could be spent somewhere where it would have an actual effect on rising crime, especially gang and organized crime?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the order in council from May 2020 listed 1,500 firearms, now nearly 2,000, that the government was saying would be prohibited. Handguns and other firearms ended up being of no value, and the Liberals said they will basically confiscate them. They call it a buyback but I call it confiscation, because we cannot buy back something that we do not own to begin with.
The billions of dollars that this will cost, which will do nothing for public safety, could be used in such a greater capacity to deal with our borders, to deal with law enforcement initiatives and to take illegal guns smuggled from the United States off our streets. Then the court systems can deal with criminals the way they need to be dealt with.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today on an issue that is, quite frankly, very near and dear to my heart. It is near and dear because before Grandpa Jack passed away, I got to hunt with him for many years for deer on, ironically, Manitoulin Island. I am very blessed to still have the opportunity to meet my father at 4:30 in the morning at his house to go chase wild turkeys with my uncle Tom. I guess it is really near and dear to my heart because I am hoping that my grandson Levi, who just turned two years old a couple days ago, will have the same opportunity to enjoy the outdoors with his “Pip”, which is me.
Today, I stand in solidarity with law-abiding gun owners across Canada. For generations, my family has been hunters. My dad got his first gun at the age of five. He, as I did, grew up on a farm. Most farmers owned guns and most family members of the household learned how to use them. Besides supplementing their food supply, farmers used guns to keep predators from their livestock. From one generation to another, each was taught how to handle a gun safely and responsibly.
My dad passed his knowledge and love of hunting to me and my two brothers. Traditions are important. We need look no further than to first nations that support these very same traditions. Hunters today still eat what they hunt and share with their wild-game-loving neighbours, just as I did Saturday night at the Gosfield North Sportsmen club's wild game dinner back in my riding.
Hunters respect nature. We are the original conservationists. We hunt according to seasons, designed to cull the herds, to curtail the behaviours of predators such as coyotes and to preserve wildlife.
Prior to my election as the member of Parliament for Essex, I was an outfitter operating in the Far North. I had the honour and pleasure of working with many first nations guides. Camps like mine, scattered across Canada's vast terrain, help preserve a traditional way of life. We bring resources and jobs to the local communities.
Interestingly enough, my riding of Essex is home to the Jack Miner Migratory Bird Foundation. Jack Miner was an avid outdoorsman and hunter who founded a sanctuary for the conservation of migrating geese and wild ducks. I suppose I could dedicate this entire speech to his list of achievements, but suffice to say, he became world-renowned. As the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau said of him, “Jack Miner, with his vision and determination is largely responsible for those conservation measures in existence today.”
As I said previously, hunters are the original conservationists. They are also law-abiding citizens. Every gun owner in Canada has to go through rigorous certification and training. Our guns are stored under lock and key. We hone our skills at licensed shooting ranges, and we transport our guns in the prescribed way.
Our government knows that the smuggling of illegal guns across the U.S. border is the true source of gun violence in Canada, yet no matter the facts, law-abiding gun owners are the ones negatively impacted by this new proposed legislation. Why is that? Is it ignorance? Is it government overreach? Is it virtue signalling to their voter base? Is it all of the above?
Sadly, the proposed new gun law restrictions are based on emotion, not on facts. Bill C-21 is divisive. It pits rural Canadians against urban Canadians. It serves no practical purpose because it ignores the real source of gun violence. It trifles over types of guns, which only serves to show how profoundly uninformed the government truly is.
Bill C-21 inexplicably also captured, or had the potential to capture, the airsoft and paintball industries in its net, thus jeopardizing these recreational activities and the businesses that go along with them. It is often hard to relate to something that one is indifferent to. However, beyond curtailing our own passions and pursuits is something more fundamental: the erosion of our charter rights and freedoms under the guise of public safety.
Law-abiding gun owners are the low-hanging fruit for the government's obsession with exercising more and more control over the lives of Canadians. Bill C-21 exploits the fears and emotions of Canadians without any bearing on the facts. It is yet another in a long line of such laws that represent a slow and steady erosion of a gun owner's charter rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. My hope is to cast Bill C-21 in a light that even Canadians who are not recreational gun owners could find a point of agreement on regarding what the government should do and, equally importantly, should not do to address gun crime.
Canada is a democracy. The people elect their government, and the government serves the people. The Constitution of Canada is based on the rule of law. As long as citizens are obeying the laws of the land, they are to be free to go about their daily lives. For the government's part, those we elect to govern us are to only pass laws that are necessary and beneficial.
Furthermore, the onus is on the government to prove that any restrictions on a citizen's liberty are necessary and beneficial. Every law that is restrictive in its nature must be thoroughly scrutinized, and we must make a compelling case for its justification. There should be no benefit of the doubt, no ignorance masquerading as facts, no cynical appeal to emotion.
Our Constitution contains the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What happens when our laws become unjust, as Bill C-21 is? Even more alarming, what happens next? Will this open the floodgates? Is the real goal to end gun ownership entirely? The fact is that those who commit violent crimes using a gun do not obey the law, any law, no matter how restrictive. They always find an illegal way to acquire firearms, chiefly by smuggling. The government knows that.
To my point about the need for balance to ensure that laws are just, when regulations become too restrictive for the law-abiding and enforcement too lax for the criminals, the law becomes unjust. That is exactly what has happened with firearms owners in Canada.
However, this will not end with firearms owners. A government's appetite for control is only whetted by each new measure of control it seizes from its citizens. The only ones who can curb this appetite are the citizens themselves. Maybe hunting is not someone's thing, but they should be concerned nevertheless.
We have seen what the government does with emergency powers under the Quarantine Act. Three weeks into the pandemic, while Parliament's sole focus was providing families and businesses the income support they needed, the Liberal government sought powers that would have given it unfettered control of the public purse until the end of December 2021. The Conservatives fought back then, forced their hand and have remained vigilant since.
Since then, the Liberals have resisted accountability, rushed programs through Parliament and issued an order in council on gun control, which is the basis for Bill C-21. When Parliament finally returned to its full function after months of being shuttered, the Liberals gave us the WE scandal, ethics committee filibusters and then prorogation to avoid scrutiny. The government has proven itself incompetent, unaccountable, unethical and power hungry time and time again to advance an ideological agenda propped up by its informal coalition partners, the NDP.
Recreational gun owners are being scapegoated. I can assure members that it will not end with law-abiding gun owners. The government's sole focus should be an economic recovery plan and another to reopen our society, all rights restored.
To summarize my key points in closing, first, law-abiding gun owners are not the source of gun violence and should not be the government's scapegoats. Second, the government needs to focus on stopping the trafficking of illegal guns across the border. Last, let us uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cast this bill and every bill in this House in its bright light.
1383 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that was another great speech written by Adam. I thank him very much for that.
I find it very interesting that the member talks about this side of the House virtue signalling, when we are continually seeing virtue signalling in regard to a ban on assault rifles coming from the other side of the House. The reality is that this House is united, with the exception of the Conservatives, in regard to doing something meaningful about banning handguns and making meaningful legislation as it relates to gun reform.
I wonder if the member could comment perhaps—
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 4:34:38 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is rising on a point of order.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would just like to say to my colleague that we are not in government, and, unlike them, we do not use speech writers.
26 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 4:34:48 p.m.
- Watch
I believe that is a point of debate.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think I made my point; it is more of a comment than a question. I think Canadians can take great comfort in knowing that every party in this House supports reform. Despite the differences Liberals might have with the Bloc and the NDP, there is only one party that is so adamantly opposed to having gun reform legislation, and that is the Conservative Party.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if there is no question, I will make a comment with no answer. My comment is that I worked hard on this speech. I have been working on this speech for over a year and a half, so I find it incredibly shameful for that member to suggest that this speech was written for me. There are very few folks in this House who will know more about firearms than me, especially about hunting. I would ask him to retract the statement. Unfortunately, I do not think he is going to.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
