Debates of May 16th, 2023

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #326

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 19 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Criminal Code

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise again to continue speaking to Bill C-21.

I mentioned before that I do not think there could be any more stark a contrast between Conservatives and all the other parties in the House, as Conservatives are the only ones who will defend the rights of law-abiding firearm owners in this country. I said earlier, and I have said many times in this debate about Bill C-21, that Liberals and the members of all the other parties seem dedicated to eliminating firearm ownership in this country by one small cut after another, particularly hunting rifles.

We have been saying that the Liberals have been going after Canadians' hunting rifles, which the Liberals have adamantly denied. Then, just before Christmas, when nobody was working and nobody was watching, the Liberals introduced an amendment to Bill C-21 that would have, in fact, banned many hunting rifles in Canada.

The Liberals were caught with that, so they repealed, or pulled back, that amendment. It is no longer a part of this bill. The Liberals have been quick to point that out, but we know that their true intention is to ensure that firearm ownership is onerous, if not outright illegal over time, in Canada. I must say this more often: Only Conservatives will stand up for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners in Canada.

It was fascinating to watch the NDP members do somersaults on this particular bill. Initially, the New Democrats were supportive of the amendment, and then they were not supportive of the amendment. It took them some time to come to this position, so we are happy to see that they came to, saying that they did not support that amendment, but here we are.

Again, members might be wondering what is the major difference between Conservatives and Liberals when it comes to this particular bill. It goes back to the idea of right and wrong, good and evil, and the fact that Conservatives believe that good and evil live inside of everyone. The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of humankind. It is not instruments that are inherently evil, but it is the actions or thoughts of humanity that can be evil. That is what we need to deal with in this.

We have seen that the Liberals, time and again, every time there is a tragedy that involves firearms in this country, right away want to ban firearms, yet when it comes to treating hardened or violent criminals in this country, they introduce bills, such as Bill C-75, that reverse the onus on bail, let violent criminals out of jail quicker and reduce minimum sentences. They talk about maximum sentences, but one of the things we need in this country are minimum sentences, where people who do the crime would go to jail for a minimum amount of time. Over and over again, we have seen the government remove those minimum sentences, and some of those minimum sentences were brought in by previous Liberal governments in the 1990s. The Chrétien Liberals brought in these minimum sentences. It is only now that the current Liberal government removed them with Bill C-75.

We see that there is a misunderstanding of where evil comes from. Evil does not come from instruments. It does not come from inanimate objects. It comes from human beings who enact evil. The Christian world view talks about sin and that there is a missing of the mark, a right way to live and a wrong way to live. That is what we are living with when it comes to violent criminals who are using firearms in terrible ways.

Firearms have been in long-standing use in Canada. I have to say that they are a big part of our history and a big part of our heritage. Firearm ownership ought to continue to be available to Canadians across the country. I am excited to pass that heritage on to my own children.

Bill C-21 would do nothing to enhance public safety here in Canada, as Canada has some of the most well-regulated firearms—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Avalon is rising on a point of order.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, this may be a point of clarification versus a point of order.

The member started his speech before question period, and he was told he could finish after question period and the votes were over. However, he started in one seat, and now he has moved somewhere else in the chamber. Is that permitted, or should he have stayed in the seat he was in?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As the hon. member is likely aware, because we are in a hybrid sitting, it does not matter where members sit.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-21 is a terrible bill that would do nothing to enhance public safety in this country. It is a confiscation of legal firearms that have been owned for generations in this country.

Firearm ownership is a heritage and a tradition that I am hoping to pass on to my children. I am excited to pass it on to my children. I know that they will be law-abiding and responsible firearms owners. I hope that tradition of firearms ownership would be something that is part of our Canadian heritage and part of the Canadian identity going forward.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to clarify for the hon. member that Bill C-21 respects sport shooters, gun owners, hunters and fishers right across the country.

The purpose of Bill C-21 is to address the problematic use of firearms and to reduce violence, which is not always about crime. Sometimes it is domestic violence, suicide, and so forth. Bill C-21 takes a great stab at doing that. It is not perfect, but it is going in a good direction.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-21 does not say anything about the use of firearms. In fact, it is about writing lists of firearms, defining which firearms are able to be owned in Canada or are not able to be owned in Canada.

In the closing days of Parliament just before Christmas, when no one was paying attention, the Liberals brought in an amendment with a list of 1,500 firearms. Many of those are used for hunting. When the Liberals were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they denied that they have been going after law-abiding hunting rifles, when that is indeed what they were doing.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague closed his speech by saying that Bill C-21 does absolutely nothing to keep our communities safe.

I am not sure whether he read or received the memo indicating that, in parliamentary committee, his Conservative Party colleagues voted for all the government's amendments related to ghost guns. This is a fairly new phenomenon in Canada. The police have asked us to do something about it, and they support what we came up with. It will certainly improve gun control in Canada.

The Conservatives also voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois amendments on cartridge magazines. A valid licence will now be required to purchase a magazine. This was done for Danforth Families for Safe Communities. I am not sure whether the member is aware, but when a gunman went on a shooting spree on the Danforth in 2018, he was using a gun he had stolen, but he bought a magazine legally, because no licence was needed.

His party voted in favour of these amendments, which will help improve public safety in Canada. That is just a comment.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that most of the tragedies that have happened in Canada with firearms have either been with illegally obtained firearms or the person using the firearm was not licensed to even be in possession of a firearm.

Continuing to focus on law-abiding firearms and firearms themselves, rather than those who use the firearms, is the major problem here. We need bail reform in this country. We need to ensure that violent criminals are not released back onto our streets, and that we ensure that law-abiding firearms owners are not harassed by the government.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague talk about hunters, farmers and indigenous communities. For the House's benefit, could he name a specific rifle or shotgun that would now be prohibited because of Bill C-21? The way I read the bill, it references any rifle or shotgun that is manufactured on or after the day on which the bill comes into force. If he is going to go on about the Canadian firearms advisory committee, I would remind him that the power to reclassify firearms already exists under the Criminal Code, and it is completely separate from Bill C-21.

Can the member enlighten the House on a specific rifle or shotgun that would be affected by Bill C-21? I await his answer.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, we saw what the Liberals did just before Christmas. They introduced an amendment that had hundreds of hunting rifles on it. Now, that amendment was pulled back and has been removed from the bill, but the Liberals were caught with their hand in the cookie jar. We know what their intention is. It is to take away hunting rifles from law-abiding firearms owners in this country. Bill C-21 would be just one step in that direction.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the order made on Tuesday, May 9, 2023, the chair be allowed to accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent for his motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Agreed and so ordered.

(Motion agreed to)

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, many hunters in my riding are very nervous about Bill C-21. Their concerns are not unfounded. Bill C‑21 is the biggest attack on hunting rifles in the history of Canada.

Hunting is part of Quebec's ancestral traditions. In our province, hunting is an important cultural and economic activity. During the 2021-22 hunting season, 563,228 hunting licences were sold in Quebec. That is over half a million licences. Nevertheless, under the guise of public safety, the government is going to use Bill C-21 to ban a wide variety of hunting rifles and shotguns, even though they are essential hunting tools.

Violent crime involving rifles or shotguns represents 0.47% of all violent crime. Of course, some people will say that that is too much. However, the fact remains that it is a tiny percentage. The hunting rifles that the government wants to ban are used not only for an important economic activity for Quebec and Canada, but also as tools for farmers to protect their herds from wild animals, for example. Hunting rifles are not responsible for the mass killings in urban centres. We know all that. Do the Liberals really think that a hunter from Saguenay is responsible for the shootings in downtown Montreal?

When we were seized with the first version of Bill C‑21, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were forced to back down under pressure from the Conservatives. This proves that those political parties do not know how things work in the regions. We have long known that the Bloc Québécois is no longer a party of the regions.

Everyone knows that illegal gun trafficking at the border is a problem. Our borders are basically a sieve for illegal guns. We need more monitoring and more resources at the borders to deal with the trafficking. No one believes that going after legitimate gun owners is going to reduce violent crime across the country. It is just another Liberal plan to once again divide Canadians. The solution to fighting violent crime is regulation, not a blanket ban on hunting rifles.

Speaking of violent crime, it has increased by 32% since the Liberals took office, and gang-related murders have increased by 92%. Who is paying the price for the Liberals' incompetence and their abysmal failure on public safety? It is our hunters, our farmers and our indigenous people. There is no reason to attack Quebec and Canadian hunters. The government is giving in to lobby groups that condemn all guns as assault weapons, when in fact many are guns used for hunting.

It is clear to me that the Liberal government is once again way off base. It is out of touch with the Canadian reality outside the major urban centres. Perhaps it would be good for Liberal ministers to go and visit the regions. I even invite them to come to my riding. We will go out and meet some hunters. I hope they will gain a better understanding of the Canadian reality.

My leader and the Conservative Party's Quebec lieutenant came to Saguenay last month. We held a round table with hunting groups, and many people were in attendance. Do members know what they all had in common? They were all very concerned about Bill C-21. However, we reassured them by confirming that the three other political parties in the House that were 100% in favour of Bill C-21 at the start had taken a step back and reconsidered because of us, the Conservatives. We will always be there to defend their interests, and that is what we are doing today.

One of the people we met at a round table was Stéphane Brassard, a retired police officer and now a member of the Saguenay hunting federation. He spent his entire life chasing criminals, but now he is being made to feel like one. His only crime is that he is a hunter and sport shooter.

We also met Marie Line Tremblay, leader of Poule des Bois, a group of women who like to hunt. She told us it is primarily a social group that gives women a chance to get together and talk about their lives and their interests as hunters. While this activity might not seem criminal to most, the Liberals see things differently.

Many controlled harvesting zones in my region, known as ZECs, depend on these weapons for hunting. They include the Association des sauvaginiers du Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean and the Club de tir le faucon, not to mention sport shooters and biathletes in training. Major businesses also depend on the hunting industry, like Chasse et pêche Chicoutimi.

Did anyone give a second thought to these organizations and businesses? What kind of compensation is the government prepared to pay? The whole thing amounts to a lot of trouble for very little return.

I will finish my speech with a message of hope to reassure all hunters and farmers in the country that the Conservatives are here to defend them. A Conservative government will invest in law enforcement and make our border safer and more secure. We will use common-sense policies to deal with criminals, instead of spending billions of dollars taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. The Liberals must end their crusade against hunters and leave them alone.

Bill C‑21 does not address crime in Montreal. It attacks ordinary people who hunt in Quebec. I know very well that the Liberals voter base is in major cities. Ultimately, they know perfectly well that Bill C‑21 will not reduce gun crime. This is a purely ideological bill. That is why I strongly oppose it.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague says that Bill C‑21 is the biggest attack on Canadian hunters ever. Unfortunately, I do not know if he has read the bill as amended in committee last week, but no hunting weapons will be prohibited if this bill is passed. The new definition of prohibited weapons is prospective. It will apply to future weapons, ones that do not yet exist. I do not know why some people are still trying to scare hunters.

My colleague also said that mass murderers in Canada do not use hunting rifles, that they do not use them in shooting sprees. I would remind him that the SKS, which I am sure he is familiar with, is widely used in Canada for hunting. It is especially popular in indigenous communities because it is affordable. I would respectfully remind him that an SKS was recently used to kill two Ontario police officers.

Perhaps we should stop scaring hunters. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, hunting rifles are not in Bill C‑21.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, at first, she fully supported Bill C-21. She even felt that Bill C-21 did not go far enough.

Then, at some point, she saw people everywhere on social media saying that the bill had missed the mark and that it would be dangerous for hunters. That struck fear in the hearts of the Bloc Québécois, and because of pressure from the Conservatives, the Bloc was forced to sit down with the NDP and the Liberals to get back to work.

That is why we, Conservatives, will always be there to stand up for hunters and sport shooters when the other parties want nothing to do with them.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, since we are at the report stage of the bill, I wanted to ask my Conservative colleague about a Conservative amendment to the bill at report stage.

Under Motion No. 12, the Conservatives are seeking to completely delete clause 43. Does my colleague realize that this is the only clause in this bill that provides exemptions to the handgun freeze? Why are Conservatives getting rid of exemptions for anyone who has an authorization to carry and to anyone who is training for the Olympic or Paralympic committee? Why do they believe in getting rid of this clause of the bill?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very good question.

I can tell him one thing. We heard an Olympian testify at committee. She is involved in sport shooting. She said that she would no longer be able to play the sport she loves so much because the exemptions are very limited.

I would like to tell my colleague that, right now, Olympic athletes are allowed to play their sport. However, before they can go to the Olympics, they have to be able to practise that sport. With this bill, they will no longer be able to practise. Consequently, we will no longer be able to send our athletes to the Olympic Games.