Blaine Calkins

[Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, September 16th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to stand here today in commemoration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, on behalf of the residents of Red Deer—Lacombe.

There are things that we always say to folks, such as wishing them a successful life and a long life. Rarely do we see people get both. Her Majesty the Queen certainly had a long life, and through her 70 years as the monarch, and her years prior to that as a princess, she certainly has been impactful. She was probably the most well-known person in the world, not just for a brief period of time, but for most of her life.

In her lifetime, the Queen witnessed the Dominion of Canada emerge from the chaos of the world wars, only to grow and become a fully-fledged nation. Despite these bold new steps, our ties to the crown have remained strong. Why would they not? If the role of the Crown is one of public service and duty of care to God and country, the Queen as monarch has surely fulfilled all of her royal duties, not only to her home in England, but also to the Commonwealth at large.

After the premature death of her father the late King George VI in 1952, the throne was hers. Just like that, at the tender age of 25, she was the Queen of seven independent nations and the head of the Commonwealth itself. A daunting responsibility if there ever were one, and that would go for any would-be sovereign, notwithstanding one so young, yet she excelled in her role.

A portrait of stability, Her Majesty guided the Commonwealth through many difficult years without sullying the reputation and prestige of the institution. In fact, the Crown survived the end of the British Empire, devolution and the troubles in Northern Ireland, among many other things, which all could have easily derailed a weaker ruler.

Through all of that, Queen Elizabeth II has emerged as the longest-reigning British monarch, eclipsing even her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria. Even more impressive, she was the second-longest reigning sovereign in world history, with only Louis XIV of France serving longer than her. With that many years on the throne, her popularity only seemed to increase, drawing from a pool of public confidence. In essence, she has left the Crown glimmering, untarnished by the events that would have derailed the career of many others.

Among Her Majesty's responsibilities as head of state was to partake in many international tours and delegations. This role brought her to Canada 20 times, both as the official head of state and, before this, as a princess when she visited in 1951.

A constituent in my riding, Sonja, vividly recalls listening to the queen's coronation in 1953 on a battery-operated radio as everyone in the nation gathered to hear the news, and she was very impressed at the time with Canada's new monarch. She would later attend the Queen's second trip to Edmonton, in 1959, to watch the parade on Whyte Avenue, an event she describes as one of the highlights of her youth. Sonja now has the unique distinction of having witnessed her third monarch, this one being King Charles III, and while royal visits do not typically incite the same excitement as they once did, royal visits and news still garner a particular amount of attention and excitement across the country, as I am sure she would attest to.

With all that being said, I, as the member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe, would like to reflect on a small moment in time, which was, to be precise, June 28, 1990. On that day the Queen actually visited my riding. Although the original itinerary limited the royal couple's stay to Calgary, it was subsequently decided that the Queen would head up to Red Deer for a few hours to see the new pediatric ward at the Red Deer Regional Hospital.

There was a buzz of excitement around her visit to the city, and a large crowd gathered to watch her do a walkabout of the structure. The new ward was innovative with patient-friendly elements such as facades of streetscapes in the rooms, and having the Queen visit was a real endorsement for the new ward. She was also introduced to a local firefighter called John Cormier, who had swum the English Channel to help raise $34,000 for the ward's construction.

The firefighters as a group were key fundraisers for the ward, helping supply it with a special children's burn unit. When the Queen was signing the official guest book, she asked a couple of times where they would like her to sign. Since no one answered her, she just signed where she thought it would be appropriate. After all, she was the Queen.

In the afternoon, she attended a lunch at the Capri Centre, where she presented the first Queen Elizabeth II Scholarship in neonatology and pediatrics to Judy Raabis, the clinical coordinator at the pediatric unit at the time of her visit. This an annual scholarship that is still awarded to this day.

An interesting anecdote about her visit comes from Red Deer's most revered resident historian, Michael Dawe. It involves concerns around Her Majesty's travel plans. As Her Majesty was being flown up to Red Deer from Calgary, a security measure was imposed whereby all air traffic in the area was temporarily suspended, yet there was a particular provincial cabinet minister who was known for his tardiness and who arrived after the security measure had come into effect. The pilot for his flight radioed in for permission to land anyway and added for good measure that he was transporting, of course, a minister of the Crown. Much to the pilot's consternation, ground control radioed back to let him know that the incoming flight simply outranked him.

It has always amazed me to see how the Queen could find the time to visit some of the little communities in between the larger urban centres, a lesson that we as parliamentarians could learn from. Furthermore, it was the Queen who specifically directed that the events she attended should primarily be public ones, rather than private receptions. This trend echoed the sentiments of the last British governor general, the Right Honourable Harold Alexander, whose informal style at Rideau Hall had possibly impressed the royal couple upon their 1951 visit to Canada.

The 1990 visit marked the fifth time the royal couple had come to my home province of Alberta, and although several royals had visited Red Deer, Queen Elizabeth was the first and only one to visit Red Deer as a monarch.

In 2005, Her Majesty visited Edmonton's Commonwealth Stadium. During this visit, I had the chance to be in the stadium with her due to my position at the time on the Lacombe town council. Alberta had turned 100 years old in Confederation in 2005.

Despite my limited interactions with her, I have a great deal of respect for Queen Elizabeth II, and I am honoured to be speaking here on her behalf today. I know many in this place have said that Her Majesty's reign was almost half the entire existence of Canada as a country itself. Well, Alberta has existed as a province in Confederation for only 122 years, and Her Majesty oversaw 70 of those. She has seen Alberta more than any other monarch could possibly have imagined.

She is the only queen that I, as well as so many Canadians, have ever known, and her loss will surely bring unforeseen changes to our nation. As a nation, we have the fortune of being a stable democratic country under her guidance, and a country that grew into its own under her watch.

I honour the Queen today, not only as a parliamentarian of a Commonwealth country but also as a proud Canadian. The future may be uncertain, but today we celebrate Queen Elizabeth II's importance to our collective past. May we remember Her Majesty's devotion to the Commonwealth and to a life of public service.

Godspeed to the Queen. God save the King. God bless Canada.

[Criminal Code, June 23rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

[Criminal Code, June 23rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply and will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I represent constituents who also participate in airsoft activities. It is a small but important industry to those who take great enjoyment in it and have fun with it. It is great for exercise and a number of reasons. The fact that the Liberal government is actually not even differentiating between a toy gun and an actual firearm shows me just how little Liberals actually know or understand about actual firearms.

I would welcome any changes to this legislation that would extract those who legitimately want to use airsoft. If there are any mechanisms that are reasonable and make sense so that people who just want to go out and have a little bit of fun can continue to do so, they would have my support.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent idea and worthy of debate in the House. I look forward to my colleague in the Bloc Québécois tabling a private member's bill, or somebody in the House tabling a bill, to establish just such a thing.

As I said in my comments, I am checked as a law-abiding citizen every day to ensure that I am able to continue to legally possess firearms in the this country, yet we do not have a system in this country that would keep track of people who are prohibited from having firearms because of their affiliation and association with criminal gang activities and prior convictions.

This government, through Bill C-71, now Bill C-5 before the House, would make it easier for criminals to be out on bail, to be out on parole and to have zero time served in jail. At the same time, the only people it would make life difficult for, when it comes to firearms, are law-abiding firearms owners in this country. It is shameful.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I actually do genuinely appreciate my colleague. We have spent lots of time working together in a constructive fashion on the fisheries committee, and I believe him to be an individual of solid character. I would simply suggest something to him, given the fact and the track record of the government that he has been supporting here all the while. If he wants to provide some solace to the House, I would humbly ask him to go and have a tête-à-tête with the Minister of Emergency Preparedness to make darn sure, before he asks somebody to apologize in the House, that he has all of the actual facts.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-21, the NDP-Liberals' most recent attempt to scapegoat law-abiding firearms owners and to trick the average Canadian into believing they are trying to improve public safety while doing absolutely no such thing.

If we looks at the balance of the government's agenda on public safety and justice, we see that Liberals seem content to undermine both of these departments and the essential institutions that support them. This is being done in order to virtue signal and play petty politics to the detriment of our entire society.

While this is deeply disappointing, it is hardly surprising. The government is light on substantive policy solutions and heavy on press conferences and so-called alternative facts.

Today additional details came to light about interference by the government and the Prime Minister in the investigation of the tragic mass murders in Nova Scotia in an attempt to create a narrative that would fit their political agenda. This is important, because it speaks to the foundation on which substantial parts of the Liberals' firearms policy rests, including parts of Bill C-21, the bill we are currently debating.

The Halifax Examiner reported yesterday that “RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki 'made a promise' to [the] Public Safety Minister...[at the time] and the Prime Minister’s Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed.”

To be clear, that former public safety minister is now the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness.

The article makes it clear that the commissioner was being pressured by the Prime Minister's Office and the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness to ensure that information was released that would help them politically, to the detriment of the ongoing investigation and potentially placing it in jeopardy.

As the Minister of Emergency Preparedness is a former police chief, we would expect better from him. However, maybe this is how he has always operated. This is a pattern of behaviour with this Prime Minister: He puts himself first, the Liberal Party second, his donors and insider friends third, and then if there is time and the chance for a really good photo op, he might try to do something that actually helps a few Canadians.

This is an example of the first two. The Prime Minister was willing to interfere with the ongoing police investigation in order to try to leverage a political edge. This used to be unimaginable, but given the Prime Minister's SNC-Lavalin track record, it is totally in line with his character. The way someone does one thing is the way that person does everything.

I want to read part of this article, because it is important and deserves to be heard in this place. Nova Scotia Superintendent Darren Campbell wrote about a meeting he had with Commissioner Lucki, stating:

The Commissioner was obviously upset. She did not raise her voice but her choice of words was indicative of her overall dissatisfaction with our work. The Commissioner accused us (me) of disrespecting her by not following her instructions. I was and remain confused over this. The Commissioner said she told Comms to tell us at H Division to include specific info about the firearms used by [the killer]….However I said we couldn’t because to do so would jeopardize ongoing efforts to advance the U.S. side of the case as well as the Canadian components of the investigation. Those are facts and I stand by them.

Those are the words of Superintendent Campbell.

I will add that every police officer carries with them an evidence notebook. I, as a former law enforcement officer back in the 1990s, still have today my evidence notebooks in case I need to recall facts about events that happened while I was on duty.

The article continues:

Campbell noted that Lucki went on at length and said she was “sad and disappointed” that he had not provided these details to the media. Campbell continued:

The Commissioner said she had promised the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister’s Office that the RCMP (we) would release this information. I tried to explain there was no intent to disrespect anyone however we could not release this information at this time. The Commissioner then said that we didn’t understand, that this was tied to pending gun control legislation that would make officers and the public safer. She was very upset and at one point Deputy Commissioner (Brian) Brennan tried to get things calmed down but that had little effect. Some in the room were reduced to tears and emotional over this belittling reprimand.

The article makes it clear that this was not the only way that the government interfered with this investigation and the release of information, by pressuring the commissioner to break agreed-upon protocols.

The article also attributes a quote to Lia Scanlan, communications director for the RCMP, that says, “The commissioner releases a body count that we don’t even have. She went out and did that. It was all political pressure. That is 100% the minister and the Prime Minister. And we have a Commissioner that does not push back.”

Those are the words of RCMP communications director Scanlan. It is deeply concerning that the commissioner would not push back against the government on this request, but it is completely and totally unacceptable that she should ever have had to. I can only surmise that she is all too familiar with what happens to women who speak truth to power to the Prime Minister and his underlings.

This is the foundation on which Bill C-21 was constructed: political pressure and interference with the RCMP, misinformation about the perpetrators of gun violence and naked political opportunism. The bill was also announced on the heels of an American tragedy, deliberately importing American political discourse into domestic Canadian policies. The Prime Minister seems to be confused about the impact of Canadian legislation on American society, of which there is virtually none.

Unless he is announcing his plan to run for president of the United States, he should start trying to address the issues that Canadians face, not American issues here in Canada.

The firearms regimes in our two countries, Canada and the United States, are completely different. It has been made clear that the mass murderer from Texas would not be able to get a gun in Canada. In most U.S. states, a 21-year-old American with no convictions could purchase a firearm and, in pretty much every state, carry it. In about half of them, they could carry concealed with limited regulations. That is not the reality in Canada.

I am a law-abiding firearms owner. In Canada, people need to take a firearms safety course, apply for a licence and submit to a background check, not only on the initial application but on every reapplication every five years, in which the RCMP can contact former conjugal partners. Then, they wait for that information to come back for a few months, and maybe then can go and purchase a firearm and abide by stringent safe storage and transport laws. That is the reality in Canada. Every day, my ability to continue to own or possess firearms is checked against the Canadian Police Information Centre’s database to ensure that I am still legally and lawfully able to.

If only the government of the day would spend that much time following up on people who are prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms, spend that much time policing our borders and making sure that the people on our borders had the tools and equipment that they needed, and spend that much time in this chamber actually focused on criminals who commit crimes: they shoot guns in our urban centres, in our communities and in our rural areas and have no respect for the law and no respect for human life.

That is not the case with the 2.1 million law-abiding Canadian firearms owners. In fact, the data clearly says the opposite. If we are going to be harmed by somebody in the country with a firearm, the vast majority of that harm is coming from somebody who is not licensed to have the firearm in the first place.

Every gun in this country is illegal unless it is in the possession of somebody licensed to have it. We have the best firearms laws in the world, and I will put that up against the record of any other country.

It is shameful that the government is importing U.S. politics into Canada to sell misinformation to the voters of this country and disenfranchise law-abiding Canadian citizens.

[Public Safety, June 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, multiple sources from the RCMP are accusing the government of political interference that risks police investigations into a tragic mass shooting. Lia Scanlan, from RCMP communications, is quoted as saying, “The commissioner releases a body count that we don't even have.... It was all political pressure. That is 100% [the] Minister...and the Prime Minister.”

Canadians are not buying the minister's excuse as he desperately tries to cover for the Prime Minister and save both their careers. If the NDP-Liberals have nothing to hide, will they support the committee's investigation of this egregious political interference?

[Public Safety, June 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has gone from inappropriately interfering with prosecutions to interfering with police investigations. To the Prime Minister, the murder of 22 people is not tragedy but political opportunity.

Superintendent Campbell made it clear: “The commissioner said she had promised the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister's Office that the RCMP would release this information.... The Commissioner then said that we didn't understand, that this was tied to pending gun control legislation”.

Will the NDP-Liberal government allow the public safety committee to fully investigate this shocking revelation?

[Points of Order, June 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I would humbly remind the House that people made plans this week to either be here or somewhere else, based on what we have as operating rules and procedures for this House. This is not a debate about what it should be; this is a debate about what it currently is.

It is evidence that this format does not always work. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc about future considerations, but for the considerations right now, there are members of the Conservative caucus who cannot participate in the House of Commons.