Debates of May 17th, 2023

Sitting Resumed

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, there are certainly legal gun owners who have concerns. Any time we talk about a certain restriction on guns, some people may not like that policy. It may not be my hon. colleague opposite, but certainly his colleagues, because I have heard them, drive some of that narrative and that fear. Every time a Conservative stands and says the government is going after hunting rifles, people sitting at home who do not watch this place see a Facebook post or some type of graphic that goes out on social media. No wonder they are angry or scared. The opposition drives a narrative that is simply not the case.

If Conservatives stood and said they do not believe that handguns should be banned in this country, full stop, which they did today by voting that this should be walked back completely, that is fine. They can lead on that, but they should not lead on issues that are not true. That is what frustrates me. We should not get to a place where we drive narratives that are simply not true. My speech today reflected a reality of where I stand on this bill, where there are limitations and where there are problems. I did not try to sugar-coat it. However, members should stop driving stuff that is not true. That is the frustration in terms of what goes forward.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a second to thank the interpreters. I know that my speeches can be challenging for them sometimes and I want to take the time to thank them.

I thank my colleague for his speech. We sense that he did his work and reflected on Bill C‑21 very constructively. I would be curious to hear his thoughts on the bill's process.

Are there aspects that he was reticent about at some point? Are there amendments he would have wanted to move? Are there amendments that were moved that he applauds? Following the adoption at third reading, does he have confidence that the Senate will be able to respond quickly to pass Bill C‑21?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, normally I would love to engage in French, but it is late and I want to make sure that I am proper in my mother tongue.

There was one amendment that I wish we would have seen the government move on. The government position at committee was against what Mr. Julian moved in terms of allowing IPSC to be named. Maybe there is a more artful way to do this in the days ahead to make sure that competitive sport-shooting organizations like IPSC can qualify under the same type of Olympic program.

This bill, in the amendment process, has been cleaned up. That is thanks to the work, frankly, of all parliamentarians in this place, or certainly the two opposition parties that have collaborated to make sure this bill is good, along with the government and Liberal members. I do think there is a lot of good in this bill. My two concerns are that we need to make sure the advisory committee is as independent as possible in terms of the advice it provides to the government and that the government needs to find a regulatory pathway for sport shooters in the domain of IPSC.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I did not want to interrupt the hon. member while he was answering the question, but I will remind him not to say the name of the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member for Kings—Hants can be forgiven. It is getting rather late.

I appreciate how he used his 20 minutes tonight. I think he approached this discussion from a very honest place, reflecting on his personal views and the views of his constituents. He is the chair of the agriculture committee, and I enjoy a good working relationship with him.

When this bill was going through clause-by-clause, it was a real pleasure for me to tune in to see the member for Kings—Hants voicing vociferous support for our amendment to the bill that was going to expand it to allow for IPSC. I congratulate him for taking that stand. I have had exchanges in this chamber on that with the member for Outremont, who took me a peg lower because I dared to publicly support that. We know from IPSC shooters, and I have gone to competitions, that some of the top-level athletes in that field can shoot 50,000 rounds of ammunition every single year. That leads to their firearms breaking down, and they need replacing.

Can he expand on how we need to be a bit more reasonable in this place in understanding that, while not everyone might like the same hobby, we should at least try to find a way to respect something that so many people put so many hours into practising. They try to perfect their craft and are simply asking for their sport, which is something they really enjoy doing, to be left alone.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague across the way. I agree with him that we have a great working relationship, and I think he is one of the more astute members in this House in terms of his interventions.

I completely agree. As I highlighted in my speech, this is one of the failings of the bill. There is a lot that is good about it that makes me feel a conviction to want to support it moving forward. The IPSC and competitive sport shooters part under the handgun piece is what I have a challenge with.

I want to address his comments about the NDP amendment that was brought forward. I was a sub-in on the committee. The government's position, of course, was to be against it. I was put in a difficult situation of subbing in at a moment when I would have really liked to support it. Out of respect for the government position, because it would not have normally been me on the committee, I abstained and the amendment was passed by the chair.

To Tracey Wilson and some of the firearms lobby, I ruined the IPSC part, but it would have been defeated six to five had I not been there. At least we had an ability to take it to the chair. There is probably no love lost, but I still think there is an ability, in the days ahead, for the government to get this right in a regulatory measure.

I mentioned that the Bloc passed an amendment that talked about annual certification. IPSC certifies on an annual basis. It makes sure that its members are participating and are involved. That could be an opportunity for the government to find a way to include this organization. We do not want to open the tent super wide, but I think in this case it is justified and it should be something the government is looking at in the days ahead.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to acknowledge my colleague's concern with some of the items in this bill. I know he is concerned about the 32% increase in violent crime and gang-related murders, which have doubled. I am optimistic that he will sleep on this tonight and take a look at it, and that his comments are genuine. He may be able to see improvements, but I do not know if he can put amendments forward to do that at this stage.

I would like him to comment on what I mentioned earlier: the increase in violent crimes and gang-related murders. Many in the industry are saying that this bill is not going to be the answer to solving and lowering those crime rates. Can he expand on that?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the hon. member's interventions. He is a reasonable colleague and we need more level-headedness in this place.

I will say two things. I agree that this legislation, this proposal alone, is not going to solve gun violence. It is not going to solve violence in our communities. Solving it is going to take a more nuanced approach than that. It is going to take additional measures at the border, which the government has been working on and needs to continue to do. It is going to take investment in mental health. It is going to take investment in communal programs and social initiatives to make sure that individuals who might be lured into a life of crime have the opportunity to be engaged.

I would agree with him that this bill alone does not solve that issue. I know he may have certain challenges about the provisions in the bill. There is some contention, and I have wrestled with that tonight.

On the amendments, I want to register something, as I never had the chance to do it during my remarks. As I went through each of the amendments that were brought forward, I was concerned when the Conservative Party tried to move an amendment today that would have walked back the exemption on Olympic sport shooters. It was moved by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. The Conservatives voted for it. I do not know why they voted for it, because that would have taken away the small exemption that does exist for sport shooting now, which I think should be expanded. Hopefully, some of the Conservatives can address that in their comments later this evening.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

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.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, was the point that, if criminals do not follow laws, we should therefore not have laws?

That aside, the hon. member was sitting while he is speaking. Our traditions are that we stand when we address the House. I do not know what the rules are with respect to sitting down—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Agreed. It is the rule to stand while we speak in the House, which is why we say, “While I stand in the House”.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out how common-sense has left this place.

We are almost at midnight. I am leaning on my desk. The member comes rushing down here to raise a point of order that members cannot lean on their desk at a quarter to midnight because they could potentially be sitting. This is the lack of common sense that usually comes from the member and his party.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, on a point of order, it is bizarre that the hon. member is talking about following the rules, but said the rules do not apply in the last 15 minutes while the House is sitting. I find that surprising, so I was just wondering—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are getting into debate now, so I would ask the hon. member to conclude his speech.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University has the floor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have the floor, and I am standing. I think that highlights the Liberal philosophy quite well. The common sense is lacking.

The common people of this country know what this bill does. This bill goes after hunting rifles that have been used safely across Canada. This is a frustration of Canadians. I am sure they are calling other members' offices. They are calling my office. I am meeting with people.

Conservatives do not support the confiscation of other people's property. This is what this bill would ultimately do. There is the Liberal firearms advisory committee that would do what the Liberals wanted to do with earlier amendments. It is clear that this panel would do the bidding of the Liberal government. We have seen this time after time. The Liberals try to do things through the front door, and if that does not work, they go through the back door. This is how they are bringing it in.

The Liberals are saying there are no firearms that would be banned by this legislation. However, it would appoint the Liberal firearms advisory committee. Who appoints it? It is the order in council. I wonder who they might put on that. Would that be a panel of experts who view the world how the Liberals view it? I wonder. A special rapporteur would figure this out, I am sure.

There is a whole bunch of things that could be improved in this bill. Obviously, with our track record in this country on violent crimes, we are on the wrong path. We need to fix the justice system. We need to have jail not bail. We need to have common-sense rules that govern our country. We will never have that until we defeat the Liberal-NDP coalition and get common sense back in this country.

I am fearful of the consequences if we continue down this path with individuals who pretend to have the best interests of the country at heart, but when flawed legislation such as this is brought forward, it brings up questions. If Liberals really want to lower crime, why are they going after Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle? There is no good answer. This is virtue signalling from the Liberals that they are somehow going to tackle violent crime by going after Grandpa Joe.

We know that it will not work. What is really frustrating is that we need sensible measures that get the criminals off the streets.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are going off on a completely ridiculous tangent right now.

My hon. colleague talked about the firearms advisory committee. I would ask him to find where, in Bill C-21, that is mentioned. I will give him a hint. It is not there. He should take a look at the public safety website because he would see that the firearms advisory committee is a body that already exists.

At the risk of repeating myself for the nth time today and yesterday, I would challenge my hon. colleague to name one rifle or one shotgun that is in this bill that would be prohibited. I ask the member to give me one model, unlike all of his colleagues before him.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is the NDP. Its members just trust the Liberals. If people who are watching at home want a Liberal MP, then could vote NDP and get the same thing. The NDP are just going to prop up the Liberals.

They are asking, “What firearms will the committee ban?” We know in the amendments they wanted the Winchester model 100, Winchester model 1910, Ruger Deerfield carbine, Remington 740, Remington 7400 and the Remington model 4.

This is just a small fraction of what the Liberals have wanted to ban. We know that is their intent because we have seen the amendments they slipped up on. They thought they could get something through on an amendment. We know exactly what they are going to ban, and they would ban them in the months to come.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that there was 40 people arrested 6,000 times. I googled it.

According to the Vancouver Sun, it was actually 40 people who had 6,300 incidents, and most of these people are people with mental health and substance abuse challenges. These are not arrests. These are incidents. Could the member please correct the record?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is the common-sense Liberal. They say that these were not arrests; these were just incidents. They were individuals who were not following the law, and they will never follow the law until we get the bail and jail systems figured out. We need more jail, not bail, and as people are put in jail, they will not be committing crimes. This is the common-sense approach that needs to be done. We need to identify who is committing the crimes and fix the system so that they get the help they need, and if these individuals are having mental health troubles, I will bet they are addiction-related.

What happened in British Columbia? It just legalized hard-core drugs. Those drugs lead to addictions, which lead to more criminal activity.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it so troubling that the coalition of the Liberals and the NDP seems to be bent on bringing American-style politics into the conversation, yet what I find really interesting is that they actually invited a former presidential candidate who supports the second amendment in the United States.

They say one thing but do another on so many fronts. Could the member for Saskatoon—University highlight other examples of the hypocrisy we see in the Liberals, as well as the NDP?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

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!

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Now they heckle me, Madam Speaker.

[An hon. member]

We've been heckling the whole time.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

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.