- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $138,707.52
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I just noticed that there is a list of rural NDP ridings here, and this member is not on that list. He obviously has an urban riding. I just wonder how much he consulted with his colleagues and all the rural ridings the NDP members actually represent and how much they listened to them. By the sounds of it and by the support of the bill, I would think he did not listen to them at all.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is the problem. It is not false. I wish the member would understand the impact this has.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the problem with the bill is that it is fundamentally flawed. With all due respect to my colleague, I do not think anybody really appreciates the impact this is having on rural Canada and the way of life or the way we live in rural Canada. I cannot imagine trying to defend my livestock. When I farmed, I had cattle, and there are coyotes that come around. When the mother cow is having her calf, there are packs of wolves and coyotes that will come and kill everything. A farmer needs a gun to fix that. The problem is that this bill is attacking that very farmer.
An hon. member: That is false.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-21, and I do not think the member really understands the impact this bill has on rural Canada and the way of life in Canada.
This afternoon, they just thought of a new bill, and he asks what I think of the idea. Judging by past representation of the government, I have absolute apprehension when it comes to commenting on anything that I have not even had a chance to read yet.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the event that Bill C-21 receives royal assent, I trust that these facts will serve opponents of Bill C-21 in their legal battles in court.
Bill C-21 was a disaster from the day it was introduced, but the defining moment for Bill C-21 was when the Liberals introduced amendments at the committee stage that would have effectively banned thousands of firearms used by hunters across Canada. I mention this because it proved once again that there is a stark difference between what the government is telling Canadians and what it is actually doing.
The Liberals claim they are taking guns away from criminals when, in reality, they are taking firearms away from law-abiding hunters. They claim they are tackling violent crime, but violent crime has increased by 32% since the Liberals took office. They claim that they carefully consulted with stakeholders on this legislation, but they failed to heed the advice of the Canadians who were most impacted.
Conservatives called their bluff and continued to fight for millions of law-abiding firearms owners across Canada. The Prime Minister spent weeks telling Canadians that firearms used for hunting would not be banned. The truth was finally exposed when he admitted, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. After weeks of outrage from Canadians, provinces, territories, indigenous communities and even from members of the government's own party, the government paused its hunting rifle ban.
However, the government turned to Bill C-21 to push it through Parliament. The Liberals moved a closure motion that shut down debate in the House of Commons. They limited the number of committee meetings on this bill. They moved time allocation to shut down debate at committee, and they forced MPs to vote on amendments without studying their full impact.
Therefore, here we are. Hunters do not know which firearms will be banned. The future of Olympic sport shooting in Canada is in jeopardy. Canadians are wondering who will be appointed to the new firearms advisory committee. So much for the sunny ways that the Prime Minister once promised.
Conservatives support common-sense solutions that tackle the root cause of crime. This means going after criminals, getting tough on crime and fixing the broken bail system. That is why Conservatives support cracking down on border smuggling to stop the flow of illegal guns. It is why Conservatives support measures that bring back serious sentences for violent offenders. It is why Conservatives support implementing bail reform to ensure that repeat violent offenders remain behind bars as they await a trial. Instead of focusing on this, the Liberals are targeting law-abiding Canadians in the name of public safety. We have seen no evidence to suggest that taking firearms away from law-abiding firearms owners would reduce crime. As a matter of fact, licensed firearms owners are some of the most tested, vetted and lawfully responsible Canadians in this country.
When it comes to the impacts that Bill C-21 will have on public safety, the chief firearms officer in Alberta stated the following:
Bill C-21 is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. Prohibiting specific types of firearms is not an effective way of improving public safety. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been used on more effective approaches, such as the enforcement of firearms prohibition orders, reinforcing the border or combatting the drug trade and gang activity.
One of the most pressing issues for the Canadians I represent is the rate of rural crime. We know that criminals specifically target rural Canadians because of the lack of law enforcement in rural areas. I hear the stories of seniors watching their sheds being robbed in broad daylight because criminals know that the police do not have time to respond. Rural Canadians are waking up to discover their vehicles stolen, only to find them burned in a field down the road. I was in Swan River last month, a rural town of 4,000 in Manitoba, where nearly every business has bars on the windows and buzzers on the doors to prevent robbery. I can assure members of this House that law-abiding firearms owners across Canada are not committing these crimes; unfortunately, the current government is more focused on targeting rural Canadians who legally own firearms than on targeting rural crime.
In conclusion, I am troubled to see another attack on law-abiding firearms owners being pushed through Parliament. I am even more surprised to see the NDP members who represent rural ridings failing to represent their constituents. The NDP pretends it is standing up for rural Canadians, when in reality, it only stands up for its Liberal coalition partners.
As I mentioned earlier, I represent a completely rural region where most people own a firearm or know someone who does. It is a region where firearms are seen as a tool and not as a weapon. I understand how rural Canadians feel because I am one of them. For those reasons, I will again be voting against Bill C-21 as yet another attack on law-abiding firearms owners.
872 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the requirements of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and of section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, respecting the use of both the English and French languages in the records and Journals of the House of Parliament of Canada, are mandatory and must be obeyed. Accordingly, the House can no longer depart from its own code of procedure when considering procedure entrenched in the Constitution.
On page 295 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, in reference to the 1985 case, Maingot lists those constitutional requirements regarding parliamentary procedure that must be obeyed. In that list, he includes section 48, which deals with the quorum of the House of Commons.
Since the special order restricts the calling of quorum, and since calling of quorum is the only means by which quorum can be established during a sitting, in essence, the special order waives the Constitutional requirement of quorum. As the Speaker and their predecessors have reminded this House countless times, and I am sure the Supreme Court justices will agree, one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly.
In the event that Bill C-21—
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the requirements of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870—
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1985 that the requirement of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 23 of the Manitoba—
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, debate at second reading also took place without quorum on June 9, June 21 and June 22, 2022. That means that Bill C-21 will have been considered without the constitutional requirement of quorum for every stage of the legislative process in this House.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1985—
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the special order. I just want the record to show that we are considering Bill C-21 at report stage without the constitutional requirement of quorum. I point out that the special order under which we are operating also provides for third reading to be—
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21. It has never been more clear how disconnected the current Liberal government is from rural Canadians. Firearms are tools for millions of Canadians, especially those who call rural Canada their home.
I am a law-abiding firearms owner myself, just like millions of other Canadians across this country. I represent a region in this House of Commons that comprises rural communities and rural Canadians. The largest community I represent is smaller than 10,000 people. I am also a farmer who, just like thousands of other farmers, uses a firearm, not as a weapon but as a tool to protect my farm. When I speak to Bill C-21, I speak from an understanding of what a firearm means to the rural way of life.
Rural Canadians share the understanding that the firearm is a tool. It is an understanding shared by first nations, hunters and law-abiding firearms owners all across this nation. Unfortunately, the current Liberal government has few members in rural regions and, therefore, little representation from rural Canada. When I see the government display such a blatant disregard for the rural way of life, I fear it has made a calculated political decision to write off the views of rural Canada for its own political gain. After all, rural Canadians did send the Liberals a strong message at the ballot box in the last election. The government has no regard for the concerns, the priorities or the way of life of rural Canadians.
The cost of the neglect displayed by the government toward rural Canadians is a direct reflection of an increasing urban-rural divide, and it is a divide that I fear will only grow larger the longer the Prime Minister remains in power.
This is a very important matter, and I draw to the Speaker's attention that quorum is not present in this chamber.
322 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
