44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is hard to know where to start with the disinformation. I am perplexed by the issue of report stage amendments. The Conservatives have filed amendments that do the contrary to what their position was at committee. I can understand why the member could not defend the report stage amendments. They are kind of bizarre and contradictory.
On the issue of the filibuster, we have had law enforcement right across the country say, effectively, that we needed to put in place these provisions that combat ghost guns, which are used only by criminals. We have seen this on the lower mainland. There is a proliferation of ghost guns; in some cases, anecdotally, a 100% increase in ghost guns has been seen per month.
Why did the Conservatives, for weeks, block provisions around ghost guns that are desperately needed by law enforcement?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work in committee and for his efforts in helping us all work together. I think we can all agree that we have achieved a good piece of legislation together.
The work we did on ghost guns is critically important. Those of us from the Lower Mainland in Vancouver have heard police forces talking a lot about the importance of getting this right.
The member opposite asked me a question after my speech. I have been reflecting on that question, and I would like to ask him a very similar question. We saw the Conservatives, time and again, filibuster and try to delay. They would vote for some of the amendments, but then delay again.
I would love for my hon. colleague to explain to me why he thinks Conservatives filibustered, and why he thinks they continue to pretend that these amendments, which have been withdrawn, still exist. Perhaps, most importantly, why does he think that, today, they are putting forward amendments that contradict their own voting record in committee?
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt my colleague does effective work on the public safety committee.
The reality is that Conservatives worked very productively with the other parties, I thought, once the House of Commons said that they had to end their filibuster and get back to work. We managed to get unanimous agreement on the vast majority of amendments as we worked through clause-by-clause.
However, there are some Conservatives who continue to talk about amendments G-46 and G-4. As members know, I cannot present props in the House, but clearly in my amendment book, G-46 has been withdrawn. I would ask my colleague if he can confirm that G-46 and G-4 were withdrawn at the beginning of February, which means Conservatives should not continue to talk about these amendments as they no longer exist.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we can talk about cheap politics, petty games and filibusters. Indeed, my colleague opposite talked about some of the petty games, but he did not reference the fact that so much of the time that they have been asking for has been wasted by the Conservatives through this filibuster process.
As the gun lobby is attacking members of Parliament like me on social media for standing up for public safety and responsible gun laws, it is simultaneously retweeting Conservative MPs and the leader of the Conservative Party. It it seems to me now that, similar to the United States, the Canadian gun lobby and the Conservative Party of Canada are one and the same. They are clearly bed buddies.
My colleague said that we are all urban MPs on this side, but I am not. I am a semi-rural MP, and I have a lot of avid hunters and farmers in my community as well.
However, I have two questions. First, do Canadians need AR15s to protect their farms? Do they use them for hunting? Do they use assault-style weapons and weapons of war for these “sports”, as he put it? Second, has the member opposite ever benefited from fundraising? Has he ever keynoted a gala for the Canadian gun lobby, as many of his colleagues have?
223 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague, but it is rare to see so much disinformation in a short speech.
If Conservatives were actually concerned about criminals, they would not have tried to block all of the provisions that hit only criminals around ghost guns. For the last few weeks, we have had Conservatives waging a filibuster to block those provisions that law enforcement is calling for.
The reality is the bill targets criminals' use of ghost guns. What the bill does not do is what my friend has referred to and keeps talking about, as other Conservatives do, which is about amendments G-46 and G-4. Clearly, in the amendment pages, they have been withdrawn. I have asked this question to other Conservatives and have yet to have a clear answer. Will Conservatives admit that G-4 and G-46, thanks to the NDP push, were actually withdrawn? Most of the member's speech really is not relevant to what is in the bill.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's work on committee. The Conservatives voted with the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals on almost all the amendments that were brought forward in the marathon sessions last week.
I also appreciate that the member has been the first Conservative to admit that G-4 and G-46, the Liberal amendments that have been part of the Conservative talking points now for months, were actually withdrawn. I appreciate his honesty in admitting that the Conservative talking points were false.
I get calls from Alberta. These are constituents in Alberta ridings who cannot reach their Alberta Conservative MP at all, so they contact me in British Columbia. One of the concerns they raise is about criminal activity and ghost guns. The reality is that Bill C-21 deals with ghost guns in a substantive way.
The member was talking about cracking down on criminals. Criminals use ghost guns. Law enforcement needs this legislation. Why did the Conservatives filibuster it for weeks and weeks?
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats were quite thankful for the filibuster back in December when they were still deciding what stand they were going to take in support of our hunters and sport shooters. They had no idea which way they were going to swing on this issue, and I was thanked by them at the time. They thanked me for giving them time so they could take it back to their caucus and figure out what they were doing on this. The Conservative Party says they are welcome that it give them the extra time so they could finally find the right path forward.
As for the withdrawn G-4 and G-46 amendments, the government is introducing a backdoor mechanism so it can achieve the very same ends, and the NDP supported it on that. I fear that the firearms advisory committee is not going to be an independent committee. I believe the government has already prejudged what kinds of firearms it is going to ban and it is just putting forward this front group so it can do the dirty work for the government.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have to disagree with the context that the member brought forward, of a filibuster on Bill C-21. We have very legitimate concerns on this side of the aisle, as I mentioned, concerns that have been raised by members of 42 first nations I represent and the people at the sport shooting clubs. I just want to really push back on that assertion of a filibuster. We are here doing our job of raising the concerns of our constituents.
Briefly, I do appreciate that the government finally understands that there is a need to address bail reform. Unfortunately, Canadians really do not trust the government that broke the bail system to fix the bail system. That is why Conservatives are going to keep fighting for a common-sense approach to that.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's calm demeanour tonight. That contrasts with some of his Conservative colleagues, who have simply been losing it throughout the debate this evening.
The point the member raises is very clearly contradicted by the facts. Amendments G-4 and G-46 have been withdrawn, so the concerns he raises about the bill's impacts on existing firearms are non-existent. Those amendments have been withdrawn. No Conservative tonight has been able to point to a single firearm that is impacted by Bill C-21.
On the issue around criminality and criminal gangs, I would agree with the member that we need to take action. What law enforcement has been calling for is action against ghost guns, which are being used by criminal gangs and criminals across the country, although perhaps not in his region. However, in my region, there has been a tenfold increase, and the Conservatives have been steadfastly blocking legislation that deals with ghost guns and provides support for law enforcement.
Why would they filibuster a bill that makes a difference in combatting crime?
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
