44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2023 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore for his hard work.
We have promised Canadians we would crack down on gun violence. Assault-style firearms have no place in our communities. That is why we are pushing forward with smart policy to get these weapons off our streets, investing in our borders to stop illegal smuggling and investing nearly $400 million to support law enforcement and address guns and gangs.
Yesterday, I introduced a bill that would make it harder to get bail after committing a crime involving a firearm.
What do the Conservatives do? They vote against these measures and they filibuster. We have a plan. They have a record of slashing police budgets and stalling.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the ability to answer in a more fulsome way. I was not at the committee. All I can do is reiterate what I said in my speech, that if we look at the public statement that comes from the National Association of Women and the Law, it took the time to say that with the amendments that were adopted at committee, it feels that this bill would make it much safer for women who are in difficult and dangerous situations involving a firearm.
The National Association of Women and the Law has a lot of credibility. I valued working with it. I take a public statement like that on the current version of Bill C-21 at face value and accept its ultimate judgment on this bill and what it would do for women in violent situations.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I often hear the government touting Bill C-21 as a bill that bans assault-style firearms. That is how it presented the bill to groups like PolyRemembers, by saying that this bill would finally ban assault-style firearms.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. What we are seeing is that, in May 2020, the government issued an order in council banning 1,500 guns, including the AR‑15, which is quite popular and was used in a mass shooting in Canada.
Today, even after the passage of Bill C‑21, the WK180‑C will still be in circulation. That is a gun that uses the same magazine and ammunition as the AR-15. It is a semi-automatic weapon that works almost the same way and that is also an assault-style firearm. That gun will still be in circulation even after Bill C‑21 is passed.
I am wondering how the government can say that Bill C‑21 bans assault weapons when the definition of a prohibited weapon that is proposed in this bill is prospective, meaning that it will apply only to weapons that will come on the market in the future. I must have missed something. When we ask the minister to issue an order in council banning weapons similar to the AR-15, he does nothing.
I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on that.
244 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoyed the speech by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I might differ on a few quibbles, but by and large I really appreciate his treatment of the matter.
It is an honour to join this discussion on strong, new federal firearms legislation and to join the voices of those supporting the progression of Bill C-21 through Parliament. The committee on public safety and national security has done the remarkable and arduous job of scrutinizing this bill. I would like to thank colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their constructive deliberations and collegiality. We would not have gotten this done without their invaluable co-operation, and every one of us has a stake in it.
We have heard from members who described the impact of gun violence in their communities. We have heard from survivors. We have heard from those who work with the government on many matters of public safety. They all make the point that we cannot lose another life to gun violence in this country. That is why I am so proud to be part of a government that cares about moving forward.
We know that, working with parliamentarians across the aisle and with Canadians at large, we can pass Bill C-21 as a package of reforms that would broadly enhance firearms safety throughout Canada. This would be the strongest firearms legislation we may ever see as parliamentarians. It would introduce stiffer sentencing for trafficking and new charges for illegal manufacturing of ghost guns and for altering the magazine or cartridge of a gun to exceed its lawful capacity. It would set out new wiretapping authorities for police to stop gun violence before it happens.
Bill C-21 would introduce a national freeze on handguns, and that would mean that the vast majority of individuals would no longer be able to transfer, that is buy, sell or import handguns into Canada. This would end the growth of handguns in Canada. This bill is also significant in how it would address the role of guns in gender-based violence, a pernicious issue we simply cannot ignore. It would prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands. Individuals with a restraining order against them, whether previous or current, would no longer be able to obtain a firearms licence.
New red-flag laws would allow courts to order the immediate removal of firearms from individuals who may be a danger to themselves or anyone else. Additionally, yellow-flag laws would allow chief firearms officers to suspend an individual's firearms licence if the CFO receives information calling into question their licence eligibility.
The identity of vulnerable people who provide information to the courts would be protected. Let me be clear that there would be no obligation for victims to use these laws. These provisions would not remove any current tools. They would be there to offer additional protection, additional tools in the tool box.
The unwavering goal of this legislation is to protect Canadians, particularly those who are most at risk. Statistics show that victims of intimate partner violence are about five times more likely to be killed if a firearm is present in the home. I would like to share a few more important statistics with my colleagues. We know that the more available guns are, the higher the risk of homicides and suicides. Handguns are the most commonly used firearms in homicides, and suicides by firearm accounted for 73% of all firearm deaths in Canada between 2000 and 2020. Fifty-eight per cent of crime guns are traced to domestic sources that are predominantly from straw purchasing and theft.
Reducing the number of guns in our communities would mean reducing the number of victims of gun violence. Making handguns unavailable for transfer and restricting their importation just makes sense. However, as we have said from the beginning, we are not targeting responsible handgun owners or those using firearms for purposes like hunting or sport shooting; this is about tackling violent crime and preventing senseless, tragic deaths.
We know that no single initiative will end the complex issue of gun violence. This bill is but one part of our comprehensive approach. We have seen far too many tragedies, including those recently in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. We have seen close to 16,000 incidents of violent crime involving firearms in Canada since 2010. We have been clear that firearms designed for war, capable of rapid reloading and discharge that can inflict catastrophic harm, have no place in our communities.
We have also been clear that we fully respect and recognize the traditional and cultural importance of hunting for indigenous communities. The government recognizes the importance of consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples to ensure consistency of federal laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill also includes a specific clause that clearly states that nothing in this definition is intended to derogate from the rights of indigenous people under section 35 of the Constitution.
It must be emphasized that guns that have already been designed and manufactured when the bill would come into force would not be affected. Other than so-called ghost guns, no existing rifle or shotgun whatsoever would be affected by this bill.
We would also be re-establishing the Canadian firearms advisory committee to independently review the classification of firearms on the current market with a diverse membership from across the country. This independent panel would be charged with making recommendations to the government about the classification of firearms and what constitutes reasonable use for hunting.
It is our goal to keep communities safe. I am confident that Bill C-21 would get that balance right. As we have said from the beginning, no single program or initiative can end gun violence. That is why this is just one of the many initiatives we are deploying, alongside border measures, investments in community infrastructure and banning assault-style weapons to keep our communities safe.
Since 2015, we have focused on the social causes of crime with programs like the $250-million building safer communities fund so that we can tackle gun crime and support community-led projects. We have also invested over $1 billion, since 2016, into the initiative to take action against gun and gang violence, which provides funding to provinces and territories to reduce gun and gang crime in our communities and enhances the capacity of the RCMP and CBSA to detect and disrupt gun smuggling. That is on top of the over $40 million provided annually through the national crime prevention strategy, which invests in community-based efforts that prevent youth involvement in crime and help address the risk factors that have been known to lead to criminal activity.
Federal officials have met with our federal, provincial and territorial colleagues to talk about the ways in which we could all make certain modifications to the bail system so that we can address specifically the challenges around repeat violent offenders who have used either firearms or other weapons, and this is how we will keep our communities safe through collaboration, discussion and multipronged approaches. Bill C-21 is a key piece of this puzzle.
I want to thank all members once again for their constructive input. I encourage all members to join me to today in making sure Bill C-21 moves forward.
1237 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 8:17:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his amendment being passed. The committee worked very hard to do so. It was great to have him substituting in here and there on the committee. It was a good help.
He mentioned that there is a problem with the definition of what an assault-style firearm is. I would agree that it needs work. That is, in fact, the purpose of the firearms advisory committee. It will consult with sports shooters, hunters, indigenous people and people across the country, from all walks of life, who will help it to formalize a correct and good definition of what an assault-style firearm is. I certainly hope that he will contribute to that discussion.
120 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
- May/17/23 8:34:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am curious. I may not have followed everything, but I do not believe that I heard the answer to an important question. What type of firearm used by hunters is banned by this bill?
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 8:36:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think that is the most intelligent question I have been asked this evening.
Of course, if a person who has been granted the right to own a firearm is negligent, engages in domestic violence or is found to be suffering from mental illness, then it would be appropriate for that person to lose that right. A red-flag measure could be considered in such cases.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Outremont.
I am pleased today to speak to this legislation, Bill C-21, which speaks to the complexities of responding effectively to the escalating gun violence we are seeing in this country. There is surely no easy solution.
In Canada, we continue to justifiably pride ourselves on being a place of peace, but there are fissures in that feeling of security. The debate on Bill C-21, in particular the now infamous amendments, is no exception. From what I have heard to date, whether from constituents at home in the Yukon or from any member of the House speaking to this subject, we all agree that more needs to be done to keep our communities safer, even as each party, perhaps each member of the House, may harbour different ideas as to how best to achieve the peace we are all seeking.
Acts of violence have increased again in recent years. Despite the rhetoric of easy blame, there are likely multiple reasons for this increase. Organized crime, intimate partner violence, gang violence and random acts of violence are all contributors. From the horrific mass casualty event in Nova Scotia in early 2020, to the recent tragic stabbing of a 17-year-old in Vancouver, to the shooting of Sgt. Eric Mueller hardly a stone’s throw from the House just last week, we cannot ignore the rise in violent crime.
Enter Bill C-21. When this bill was initially introduced, many of my constituents reached out to express concerns about some of the provisions. They were from both vigilant and law-abiding firearms owners and those without their own firearms who were concerned about the further pressure on an already tightly regulated activity. Thus began my own journey with this bill and its various iterations.
When consulting with Yukoners, I found support for some of the provisions of the bill, such as bolstered law enforcement to address illegal sales and smuggling, stiffer penalties for transgressions, commitments to invest in early diversion program, and measures such as the red-flag and yellow-flag laws to make it easier for early intervention where risk was apparent. These all remain notable and worthy aspects of Bill C-21.
However, I must highlight, before we address the amendments and their revisions, concerns remain from handgun owners. Some of them are collectors, and others use handguns on the trapline or when they are travelling in remote areas. In skilled hands, handguns provide protection against potential predators in the wilderness and are far less cumbersome than a rifle.
There were also concerns about the ban on airsoft rifles, the limitations to be set restricting the pathways to elite sports shooting and the ability of indigenous peoples to access guns to pursue their livelihoods, rights recognized in the Constitution Act of 1982.
I have been assured that pathways to sports shooting will be addressed in regulations, but the uncertainty of who will be included remains disconcerting for many. It is now no secret that, when the substantial G-4 amendments were introduced in committee, they arrived in short notice and were welcomed by few. The amendments, in addition, were confusing to interpret, and arrived without substantial prior consultation with indigenous peoples, hunters, sport shooters, or for that matter, rural MPs.
I would not dwell on the angst that these original amendments aroused in my riding, as well as in other areas of the country. The lack of clarity confused and angered many. Law-abiding Canadians, indigenous communities with recognized rights and others were uncertain whether certain rights would be upheld or indeed, if and how they were going to be fairly compensated for firearms that would need to be handed over. Some collector pieces, whether handguns or rifles, are worth hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars. Regardless of prices, some of these pieces have heritage or sentimental value that cannot be matched by undefined promises of compensation. In short, it is no wonder that many reasonable Yukoners were upset.
In speaking for Yukoners, as well as for other potentially affected people around the country, including first nations and other indigenous communities, I was pleased to see how much improvement to these amendments we were able to influence and achieve. Ultimately, the controversial amendments were withdrawn with ensuing consultations around the country, including in the Yukon, leading to the new amendments currently being considered in this debate.
The Minister of Public Safety came to the Yukon to meet with hunters, outfitters and first nations, and his efforts were widely appreciate. The now revised amendments have, likewise, been recognized as a positive step forward from those initially proposed. No longer is there a massive and confusing list of banned guns. Firearm models presently on the market are to be exempt from the assault weapon definition, and current owners now have some room to breathe.
A new advisory committee, which would include hunting and sport shooting experts, indigenous peoples and gun control advocates, would be launched to determine classifications on firearms newly on the market. The onus on classification would now shift from the owner to the manufacturer. Few would argue that we need urgent action to address ghost guns and their vast potential to make gun crime easier to commit and harder to detect.
I am encouraged by the proposed makeup of this advisory committee, and I hope that this committee will help bring together individuals with different perspectives to chart a course forward to make our communities safer, something that we need to do much more of to achieve effective and lasting solutions to gun violence.
From the opportunities I have had to sit at the public safety committee from time to time and hear testimony from both gun control advocacy groups, such as PolySeSouvient, as well as from hunters and sport shooters, all agree that there is more we must do to keep our communities safe and there is space for these different perspectives to come together to find a way forward. Speaking of the public safety committee, I would like to thank the chair and all members of this committee. They have worked long hours of late to deliberate on the revised amendments on behalf of Canadians.
I appeal to all parties to not get bogged down in what has become an unnecessarily polarizing debate: urban vs. rural; progressives against Conservatives. On this issue and, may I say, on many others, we all want the same outcome.
Thus, I believe the proposed advisory committee could be a means to objectively, through expert and balanced eyes, take this assessment out of the hands of the politicians who have allowed it to become politicized through the oversimplification of the debates.
The statistics and quotes colleagues on both sides of the aisle are applying can also oversimplify the situation. While the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports Bill C-21, particularly the intensified border controls and penalties, and have recognized that a national handgun ban is preferable to a provincial or municipal approach, it also, in the same statement, acknowledges that banning legally owned handguns will have a limited impact on one of the root causes of handgun-related crime, the illegal handguns obtained through the United States.
We have seen an increase over the past few years in firearm-related homicides. For example, Statistics Canada reported an increase in firearm-related homicides by 91% between 2013 and 2020. One in three homicides in Canada are firearms-related, and about half of these are committed with handguns, yet 79% of solved homicides involving firearms have been committed by a perpetrator who did not hold a valid firearms license.
In a more local level, and a wrenching example, in October of 2021, there was a double homicide and an additional individual injured in a shooting in Faro, Yukon, using an illegally obtained firearm. Statistics alone, though, risk overlooking the thousands of Canadians whose lives have been touched by firearm-related crimes. Lives lost needlessly will never be returned, and the families changed will never be the same.
Setting Bill C-21 aside, we are continuing to work on making our communities safer. It is important to note that there is much more to this government’s response to gun violence than what is contained within the bill. Control of trafficking at the borders is essential. Our government has invested $312 million over the last few years to enhance the capacity of the RCMP and CBSA to halt the flow of illegal guns through our borders. We need to do more to clamp down on straw sales and the illegal movement of firearms.
Earlier this year, I was honoured to be on hand when the City of Whitehorse received almost a million dollars through our building safer communities fund. This fund strives to divert at-risk youth away from gun and gang violence early and prevent devastating situations from arising.
Just last week, the Minister of Public Safety announced almost $390 million for the provinces and territories to build upon the government’s take action against gun and gang violence initiative. As a Canadian, as a parent, and as a public health physician, I abhor gun violence. I am distressed by how we have seen a rise in gun violence in Canada. This is not the Canada we want. We are obliged to do better to address gun violence. We need to learn from our mistakes and move on.
Bill C-21’s journey, including the amendments, has been a quest for an urgent solution to address gun violence. It arguably did not meet all the requirements for a collaborative, consultative approach that would bring people of different perspectives together to chart a course forward. However, with these new amendments, including the formation of a new advisory committee, we have the potential to set the stage for a collaborative and expert-driven approach that will not only help to build a safer Canada but also, in so doing, help rebuild the trust that has been lost.
As we carry on with our work to address all aspects of gun violence, I will continue to play my part to ensure that the voice of the Yukon is heard.
1715 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are here at this late hour to debate Bill C-21 and, more broadly, gun control in Canada.
There is no doubt that if this bill passes, it will be the most significant reform of our gun control laws in over a generation. I would like to take a few moments now to explain why the fight against gun violence and in favour of stricter gun control is so important to me. It was in my community of Outremont, at École Polytechnique, that we experienced an unthinkable tragedy over 33 years ago.
I often think of that evening. I still vividly remember that we were waiting for my father to arrive for dinner. I was waiting for my father at the window beside the door. We did not know why he had not yet returned from his job at the university. I remember seeing my father return with a sombre look on his face. I remember him explaining what he saw at Polytechnique the evening of December 6, 1989. I was nine years old. I asked him why 14 women had been struck down. It was simply unfathomable for the young girl that I was.
I remember that day on December 6, 1989, not just with deep sadness but also with renewed determination. The survivors of that tragedy, those courageous and resilient women, transformed their pain into action. I am thinking mainly of Nathalie Provost, who was shot and has dedicated her life since then to fighting for better control of firearms in Canada. I want to thank her and the entire PolyRemembers team for their relentless fight, even when they have to face the constant and often shocking attacks of the gun lobby.
Canada should never again have to witness such a tragedy. We have a collective responsibility to make sure firearms do not end up in the wrong hands. We must act with courage and determination, just like the Polytechnique survivors. That is one of the reasons I made gun control one of my top priorities in my political career.
Another important motivation for me in my fight for stronger gun control is based on the numbers. The numbers do not lie. They are not emotional.
Let me start with my friends and neighbours to the south. There was a time when gun ownership was not so widespread in the United States and when gun control policies still garnered some consensus in America, and I am not talking about ancient times. In 1993, the U.S. Congress passed legislation to establish background checks and waiting periods. In 1994, the federal assault weapons ban came into force, prohibiting the manufacture of many types of semi-automatic firearms for civilian use. This law, which also banned large-capacity magazines, had tangible results. During the decade it was in effect, the number of mass shootings in the United States fell by 37%, and the number of people dying from mass shootings fell by 43%.
Unfortunately, this law was allowed to expire in 2004, followed by a heartbreaking surge in mass shootings. Between 2004 and 2014, mass shootings in the U.S. rose by an alarming 183%, nearly 200%. Mass shootings are now a daily occurrence in the United States. In fact, last year, there were nearly two mass shootings, on average, every single day in the United States. Streets, schools and places of worship are the backdrops for these tragedies. Fire drills have been replaced by gun drills in elementary schools across the United States. Is that what we want for Canada? I certainly do not.
Today, America has had over 390 million firearms sold to private individuals, outnumbering the U.S. population in its entirety. This represents a 63% increase in the last two decades alone. Policies matter. The impact of looser gun laws and unbridled gun culture is as clear as it is devastating.
In Canada, although we, thankfully, have more restrictive gun laws and fewer shootings, since 2013, we have seen an alarming increase in firearm-related crimes. The biggest spike actually occurred between 2013 and 2015, when Statistics Canada reported a 30% increase in the firearm-related crime rate. Since then, it has, unfortunately, continued to rise, albeit much more slowly. As is often noted in this debate on Bill C-21, many of the weapons used in these crimes are illegally imported from the United States into Canada, demonstrating again how the prevalent American gun culture and looser gun laws can cross borders and impact us right here at home.
We need to confront the reality of these numbers, because they are not just statistics. They tell a story. We must continue to enhance the RCMP and CBSA’s capacity to detect and disrupt gun smuggling. That is why our government has once again invested in the initiative to take action against guns and gangs, that is why we must continue to crack down on gun trafficking and that is why Bill C-21 would increase maximum sentences for firearm smuggling.
Listening to some of the arguments from my Conservative colleagues, one could be led to believe that we, here in Canada, have some kind of U.S.-style right to bear arms. That is simply not the case. There is no such right in our country. There is no such provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act and there is no such provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or anywhere else. This issue was adjudicated and resolved about 30 years ago at the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of R. v. Hasselwander, where Justice Cory, writing for the majority on the court, stated, “Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms.” He went on to explain that most Canadians put more value in the peace of mind and sense of security that comes with prohibiting the proliferation of dangerous weapons. I could not agree more.
The gun lobby and the Conservatives who choose to be the mouthpieces for the gun lobby have been consistently misleading Canadians, and this needs to stop. Instead of promoting disinformation or importing American gun culture or America’s laws and politics, we should be focusing on keeping our Canadian communities safe and keeping handguns and assault weapons away from our kids, away from our schools and away from our streets.
I do want to be clear, though, that there is a time and place for some of these weapons. Some belong on the battlefield. Semi-automatic assault weapons should be in the hands of those brave Ukrainians fighting for their democracy. Hunting rifles belong in the hands of hunters who safely practise their sport. We respect the long-standing tradition of hunting in Canada, and nothing in Bill C-21 would get in the way of that, but no one needs an AR-15 or a 10-round magazine to hunt a duck or an elk. Those who do should probably find another sport.
I could go on at length about what I think about Bill C-21, but I would like to quote what Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control has said:
No law is ever perfect but Bill C-21 is a game changer for Canada and should be implemented as soon as possible. The law responds to most of the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission and the demands of the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC), which, with more than 200 supporting organizations, has fought for stronger firearm laws for more than thirty years.
In just the past 24 hours in Montreal, our community has had two incidents of gun violence, in other words two murders. That is something we do not want to get used to in Montreal, in Quebec or in Canada. We cannot and will not tolerate this.
1316 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 9:00:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the member opposite, although this is coming from the party that seems to detest American-style politics. All the member did was talk about what is going on in the United States. I do not remember once, not ever, anybody on this side of the House saying that it is a right to own a firearm. Conservatives have always said it is a privilege, and we have always said that privilege comes with responsibilities. We have never said it is a right.
I also listened to this debate and heard talk about misinformation and disinformation. That is a massive piece of it. Conservatives had to sit here and listen to that. We had to listen to what is going on in the United States. What does that have to do with what is going on in Canada? If the member wants to talk about that, she could talk about Chicago. It is a gun-free zone and it has double-digit homicides every single weekend. We can talk about Mexico if we want. It has massive gun control. Who has all the guns? It is the cartels, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
When will the member get serious about what is going on in this country, strengthen our border and reduce the number of guns that are smuggled?
232 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
- May/17/23 11:03:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who I was expecting on the soccer pitch this evening, but who was not there. I hope he will be there next time, because we played together last year.
That said, I am pleased that he is addressing the subject of shooting clubs and sport shooting. I am a hunter. I have a hunting licence. It is a family activity that I wanted to do. In my case, it is more about having a glass of wine in the evening and spending time in the bush than being an experienced hunter, but I went through the process.
What is interesting is that I had never used a firearm. I was able to obtain my possession permit. I went through the process with the help of Pierre Auger, a retired police officer who looks after the shooting range in Rouyn‑Noranda
I was pleased, although not surprised, to see the supervision provided at the shooting range. This practice is strictly controlled. It is very rigorous. There is training, and safety is very important.
Why are these places important? If people practice shooting in these places, then we would be able to identify people who might have suspicious behaviour. Maybe we should make it mandatory for people to spend time at these shooting ranges to reinforce the safety aspect. These places are essential in our communities, especially the rural ones.
If we think about other measures for improving the use of firearms or licensing, maybe guidance and education by peers at shooting ranges might be an approach worth exploring.
264 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 11:06:58 p.m.
- Watch
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
One of the reasons we in the Bloc Québécois define ourselves as the party of the regions is because we had the ability to defend the interest of hunters and farmers when they needed it, and that includes having the infamous list removed.
To answer my colleague's question, there are certain initiatives happening in Quebec. When there are problematic situations, we make sure to take action through various pilot projects or other projects put forward in Quebec. I am repeating what I said earlier, but there is real training that happens at shooting ranges to ensure that hunters understand the full scope of owning a gun. Perhaps such training should be expanded. People have to know how to use it the right way.
Maybe we should even make it a mandatory condition of gun ownership. If a person has been convicted of wrongdoing, the shooting clubs provide training to make sure that person will not do irreparable harm and that they understand the scope of owning a firearm.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to be here tonight to debate Bill C‑21 and the proposals to protect public safety and the rights and privileges of hunters and gun owners.
I would like to begin by mentioning that, as a member of Parliament, I represent a rural riding in Nova Scotia, Kings—Hants. There are many hunters and many people who own handguns and firearms in my riding.
It is part of our way of life. Every one of us who comes to the House does so bringing the voice and lived experiences of their constituents and, I would say, the experience of those in the communities they have the privilege of representing.
I want to start by saying that I do represent a rural riding. I have 20 minutes tonight, which is good. It is a privilege to be able to speak to this legislation for that length of time. I want to start with just a bit of a story.
My father taught me how to shoot a rifle and a shotgun. I would say it is almost a rite of passage in rural areas, although maybe a little less so now than it used to be. Guns are part of the culture in Canada, certainly the culture in rural communities. I do not actively shoot today. I have had lessons and the courses, but I do not actively hunt, and I do not actively shoot. However, I certainly respect those who do.
I can appreciate that, any time we have the conversation about public safety, gun control and legal gun owners, there can be a lot of tension. This is a challenging subject. It brings forward emotion. I have seen that at committee. I do not sit as a permanent member, but I did have the opportunity to sit in for a couple of hours last week. I have seen the debate here in the House, and how this is framed.
I hope to be able to give my perspective on the bill writ large, and maybe even, just broader, how we could tackle some of the challenges that we are seeing across the country. I want to start by saying that the issue of public safety is an important one in the country. We are seeing challenges with gun violence from Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia and everywhere in between. I have a statistic.
Gun violence has increased 81% since 2009.
It is not unlike other challenges. We cannot point to one single factor, as to why there might be that certain outcome, but it is certainly an issue that we have to tackle with a nuanced approach, with a lot of different mechanisms moving forward.
I look forward to talking about Bill C-21 and also some of the work that the government is doing to try to tackle what I think is a challenging problem. We are not the United States. I do not say that loosely. We are not seeing mass shootings every single day in the news. I just got back from Washington. I have to say that, when we turn on the news and look at the United States, sadly, it is happening almost every single day.
We should not make our policies in Canada on the basis of what is happening in the United States, but we should also not be naive to the fact that, traditionally, this country has been influenced by what happens in the continent. When we talk about border policy and gun control, part of that is about trying to actually stem the tide of illegal guns that come across the border.
The minister has spoken about the work the government is doing and the investments that have been made.
These investments are aimed at stopping illegal guns from entering Canada, because they pose a problem in our communities, in our provinces and across the country.
In what we have to focus on, we have to try to strike a balance between infringing on the individual privileges that exist in this country and understanding that we cannot completely stop every single act that may happen in the country. There are people who, for a variety reasons, may want to cause harm to our neighbours, our family, our friends or our countrymen. If we could take reasonable measures to try to stop the incidents of that, I think that would be appropriate.
Everyone in the House is going to have a different perspective on what that actually is, how far the limit should be. I heard some members in the House who think that the existing laws, even before Bill C-21 was proposed, might have been too stringent and that we did not need the ones that were already there, such as the order in council in 2020.
I know there are members of the House who would stand up here today and say they are completely against it. There are other members of the House who would probably like to see Bill C-21 be an even further measure, and there are some, perhaps, who are somewhere in between, so we all bring our perspectives to this conversation.
I am of the view that we already have very good, strong gun laws. I support the measures writ large that are in Bill C-21. I have certain concerns I will address in the time I have remaining. We do have good gun laws and we do have good policy. If there are ways we can tweak it to move the yardstick as we see it here in Bill C-21, I do not see that as extremely problematic.
It is important to note that, with what is contained in Bill C-21, anyone who has been impacted by gun violence should not rest assured this bill alone would solve that. It is going to take a nuanced approach, as I said. We need to invest in the border, which the government is doing and is in the process of trying to tackle. The statistics I have before me show that CBSA has stopped more illegal guns than ever before from coming across the border, because of some of the enhanced measures that are there.
We need to invest in social programs. We are seeing some of the violence in our communities, particularly in urban centres, and some of this is driven by challenges around mental health. This is driven by addictions. It is driven by a lack of social programs for young people to have a place, mentorship and an ability to be part of something bigger. Trying to restrict guns will not solve that on its own.
The government has been very clear. Sometimes when we listen in the House, we would not know there is anything else going on because there is such a focus on this piece of legislation as opposed to on the broader work happening. I just want to highlight that this is going to be crucial in the days ahead. Those who go back to their community and talk about this legislation need to also talk about everything else that is happening in the context of solving the issue, because putting forward simplistic solutions to very nuanced problems is not going to get us very far.
Sadly, my riding, Kings—Hants, is where the worst mass murder in our country's history took place.
I remember well that day, three years ago. I woke up on a Sunday morning, and my wife brought to my attention that there was a shooter on the loose in Nova Scotia. It ended not too far down the road from me. Of all the members of Parliament in the House, and I do not wear it as a badge of honour and I do not wear it proudly, I have been able to see exactly the way in which gun violence has impacted communities in my riding in the most tragic way.
That brings me to the point of what Bill C-21 would actually do. There is a lot rhetoric. The word “misinformation” is getting used too much. There are a lot of overblown dynamics of what this bill would and would not do, so let me lay it out. This bill would establish a formal handgun freeze, in that one would not be able to import or buy a handgun unless one is an exempted individual under the legislation.
The bill would establish really important red flag laws. I want to recognize the member for Oakville North—Burlington. She has taken a considerable amount of abuse sitting on the public safety committee. She and I may not agree on exactly everything, but I am proud of the work she does. I texted her the other day when this bill made its way through committee. Notwithstanding a few of my concerns, I said that this would make a difference. I just want to go on the record and say that. Some of the red flag laws would be for intimate partner violence. There would be an ability for the RCMP to be aware of those individuals who could be red-flagged, and there could be a court process to revoke a gun licence until such time as we know it is safe for an individual to have one.
With respect to yellow-flag laws, as opposed to a court order, which is a higher threshold, the chief firearms officer already has a lot of discretion in the country. They would have the ability to revocate a licence and actually obtain the gun in a situation where it was demonstrably the case that they had to prevent an individual from harming either themselves or other people. Those are good things. In fact, Conservatives voted, I believe, for some of these measures. I have not heard all the speeches tonight. The Conservatives do not like to talk a lot about that, but there are some good measures for which there is undoubtedly a pretty good consensus in this House to move forward.
With respect to ghost guns, there was no criminal provision for someone who would take disparate parts and be able to build an actual gun that could cause harm. There would now be actual criminal provisions against ghost guns. Again, this is something that was approved across party lines, and I certainly commend that.
The legislation also walks back, as members will remember, the dreaded amendments. With respect to the amendments that the government sought to table, the intention was right. The application was wrong, in terms of what it would do. There was massive confusion. In fact, when I was back home in my riding just recently, I was still getting asked questions on what the government had tabled, back before Christmas. Thankfully, that process has been simplified. There is going to be a definition of a prohibited firearm, but it would only be on models moving forward.
Let me repeat that. I have listened, certainly tonight, to the Conservatives suggest that certain guns and hunting rifles would be banned. That is not the case. Any current model would not be touched by this prohibited firearm definition. That is extremely important, and it is not being recognized by the official opposition. I understand the members might have grievances and policy differences, but they should not frame this in a way that is not what is actually happening. That is extremely important.
The bill would also require firearms manufacturers to identify what the gun was actually designed for, moving forward. Therefore, either future models would have to conform to this definition or they would be prohibited in the country. That provides the certainty and clarity that gun manufacturers would like, and it would put an onus on them to identify that. Again, it is forward-looking. There is not one single aspect about a current long rifle in the market today. That is something that is not being stated enough here in this House.
The bill would establish a committee. I should say that this committee has already been established, as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford rightly pointed out earlier in the debate. It would now be re-established to advise on the existing models on the market with respect to any that it might deem should be prohibited. I want to make it very clear, though, that this is not just a committee that would put a list together and say what is prohibited. There would still be ministerial discretion involved. That is important. Moving forward, members of Parliament could actually engage the minister once the committee re-establishes and identify models.
That was part of the problem with the amendments in the long list; there were a few hunting rifles that were included. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety made it very clear that this was not the intent, but that was how it applied. Therefore, I am glad that the government went back and recalibrated this to get it right.
I want to say one thing with respect to the advisory committee. It is a good process. I want to make sure that my advice is on the record; this is that the committee has to comprise individuals who are independent and individuals who know the technical specifications of firearms in this country. I know that there are strong advocates for gun control in this country who have been touched by violence. In my respectful view, that is not the place where these individuals should be. It should also not be the place of special interest groups that want to drive the gun lobby. To the extent that the government is able, I would suggest that it should try to find individuals who are not actually driven by one ideological preference or another but can provide technical advice to the minister and allow the minister to have discretion. That, to me, is absolutely key. There have been challenges with the firearms advisory committee in the past, including groups resigning because of the contentiousness of putting disparate groups together. This has to be an independent process.
We all come to the table with our certain biases, but again, it is going to be extremely important for those who are named to that advisory committee to be able to provide that recommendation based on policy evidence and not on emotion on either side of this issue.
With the last five minutes, as I have here in my notes, let us cut through some of the Conservative BS. Now, I did not say the word, but I am sorry and will rephrase. Let us cut through some of the Conservative narrative. Hopefully that is okay. Hunting rifles are not being targeted. How many times have we stated that on hunting rifles?
I represent a riding where there are a lot of hunters, and I had a lot of people call me during the amendments. Again, I mentioned already in my speech the concern around the amendment process and the confusion it was causing. For example, we were telling people to look at the list to see if their gun was listed there and whether we were banning it. However, the way the actual legislation read at the time, and the amendments that were tabled, is that it would say “the following guns are banned or prohibited, except for” and then it would name about 15 pages worth of guns that were actually being exempted and not being prohibited. We would tell people, of course, to go the list, they would ctrl+f to find their gun, but they did not scroll up 15 pages to see that it was actually exempted, and there was a lot of confusion.
However, let me make it very clear that the Conservatives are not correct when they say that this bill is targeting hunting rifles in any which way. They have no right to say that. They can have frustration with handguns, thinking that maybe they should be completely open and legal, which is fine, just say that, but anything around the hunting rifles is a complete fallacy. The bill does not apply to current guns. We can get into the dynamic around the advisory committee. I just made very clear where I stand on that, and the importance of that committee having independence, but this legislation, outside of putting a freeze on handguns, does not apply to any long rifles whatsoever. That needs to be recognized by the official opposition. I hope that they are not going to drive a narrative out to their constituents that runs contrary to what this bill would actually do.
Members of the official opposition supported a number of elements in this bill. However, they seem not to recognize that the government is taking other initiatives above and beyond. I agree with them that this bill alone would not solve gun violence. We need measures at the border, we need to be able to enhance criminal penalties, as this government has done for those who are smuggling guns across the border, and we need to invest in social programs. Even that may not solve the issue completely, and so let us not have rose-coloured glasses coming into this situation. Again, Conservatives need to recognize that this government is doing more than just what is in this bill.
However, Conservatives may agree with certain elements of the bill, and they obviously voted in committee on a majority of it. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford might be able to weigh in on this as he was a member of that committee for a considerable amount of time. My understanding is that the Conservatives actually voted for quite a bit of what is in here, but we would not know that by the way they actually speak on the bill.
I have two minutes left, and let me say that the one concern, among others, such as the advisory committee and the importance of its independence, is sport shooting. I have a lot of sport shooters in my riding.
The former warden for the municipality of East Hants is a guy named Jim Smith, and we have had a number of conversations. He invited me to the IPSC national championship that took place near the Halifax Stanfield airport last year. I have seen them work and the way in which these individuals go about their craft, and how they represent their province, their country and their locality at shooting competitions. I explained at committee that I was concerned that this legislation did not have a provision for this.
The NDP did move an amendment for it, and I would have liked to have seen that adopted, but it was not. The Bloc had moved a motion about certification, saying that if there is an annual certification, high-competitive shooters would be exempted under the Shooting Federation of Canada. I think that definition, in a regulatory measure by this government, has to include an organization like IPSC, which is a federated body all around the world, and there are hundreds of countries. Countries like Australia have banned handguns, similar to what this government is doing, but it found a pathway to keep IPSC as an organization.
I will conclude by saying that we can appreciate that for individuals who go to shooting competitions internationally, if Air Canada loses their gun, there would be no recourse, which is one of the limitations of this bill. A lot of the bill I support, and I will sleep on it tonight, but this is something I wish the government had tackled.
I will continue to call for the government to address it in a regulatory measure in the days ahead because it is important to make sure, as the minister said, that we have a pathway to Olympic shooting. That should include organizations like IPSC, which are highly professional and regulated and have really important membership.
3352 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 11:38:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, hunting season is over. That is what a lot of Canadians are hearing tonight. I am trying to give them comfort and understanding of what has transpired in the months on this bill and why the Liberals, supported by the NDP, are going after Grandpa Joe's hunting gun.
This is one of the most frustrating parts of the job, of being a member of Parliament. It is almost midnight. There is no reason for us to be up this late. We were up last night debating this as well. It is the mismanagement and incompetence of the Liberal government, which is why we are having to debate this late in the evening. There are real problems with the bill and it is just ramming it through.
I will try to walk us through why and some of the ways that it is going after Grandpa Joe's hunting rifles.
It is really because, eight years ago, when the Prime Minister got to Ottawa, he started changing things within our country, changing some of the fundamental principles of our justice system. The corresponding result was an increase in violent crimes of 32%. My heart goes out to family members who have lost a loved one due to violence. We know that gang-related murders have doubled under the watch of the Prime Minister. Instead of going after real criminals, he is going after Grandpa Joe.
Grandpa Joe might be in Newfoundland. He has enjoyed hunting moose for generations and is fearful of the next generation's inability to carry on a very important part of our heritage and our traditions in this country, because of the changes.
Common sense would dictate that, if we have a problem, we could ask where the problem is coming from. Once one has identified where it was coming from, that is where one should put one's efforts into stopping it, and we all want to stop violent criminals. I believe everyone, at heart, when they say they would like to stop the crime rates that continue to increase. This bill would do nothing for that because 90% of all firearms-related crimes are done with an illegal firearm.
Criminals do not follow the law. We know this. We know that the statistics out of British Columbia earlier this year showed that 40 criminals have been arrested 6,000 times. It is the catch-and-release bail policies that have been introduced by the government over the last eight years, which are driving this up.
We catch and release. We catch and release. Go out, commit a violent crime, get arrested and get released. That is the policy that has driven this spike in violent crime, up 32%, under the Prime Minister's watch.
Where does he decide to spend millions, if not billions, of dollars? Going after Grandpa Joe's firearms. It is wrong. Instead of going after illegal gun smugglers and criminals, they are going after the hunting rifles and shotguns of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people. That is where they are going to be spending the money.
I do want to remind everyone that I will be splitting my time with the member for Fundy Royal.
While I have the floor, I just want to walk through the common-sense understanding of the problem and what we can do to fix it.
The Liberals have, in every way possible, made it easier for these criminals. There used to be minimum sentences. In Bill C-5, they repealed mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. Why would they do that?
We know these people cannot help themselves. These individuals need to be behind bars and in programs to straighten out their lives, but instead, they are getting lighter sentences because of Bill C-5. There are no minimums.
The Liberals like to make a lot of noise about how they are going to increase the maximums. There are no judges in Canada who hand out maximums anymore. That is the higher threshold that should be there, but they have bumped it up to a point where it does not have an impact. We are talking about criminals who are getting firearms across the border and, for the most part, committing the crimes that are concerning families in some of our larger cities. My heart goes out to them because losing a loved one for no reason is a heinous thing to think about. A lot of times these are senseless, unprovoked crimes using firearms coming over from the United States. We have a government that will not even shut down the illegal crossing of people, let alone firearms.
A much more common-sense approach to deal with this problem would be to go after the individuals who are committing the crimes and the firearms that enable those crimes, 90% of which are coming here illegally, but with all these laws on the books, the only ones who are going to be affected are the law-abiding hunters and indigenous people of this land.
844 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 11:53:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the list of hypocritical things I have witnessed since getting out here is too long to mention in one sitting. I could probably do a 20-minute speech with rebuttals on how hypocritical they are. The different—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Corey Tochor: Now they heckle me, Madam Speaker.
An hon. member: We've been heckling the whole time.
Mr. Corey Tochor: Madam Speaker, I think the most hypocritical thing I have seen with the Liberals is in the bill before us, where they target law-abiding firearms owners instead of the criminals who are committing the crimes. They cry for the victims, and we should all cry for families when they have faced criminal activities that have robbed them of their loved ones. However, we should understand that their efforts are going after the wrong people out there.
Grandpa Joe's firearm is not what is shooting up downtown Vancouver and Toronto.
158 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
