Thread by @TWilsonOttawa

Todays #LiveTweet thread on #SECU as the committee continues to study the assault on legal hunters and firearms owners. #C21 🇨🇦

Let’s go!! ⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️⤵️

Chair begins, land acknowledgment. Makes note they’ve got until 1:30 today (2.5 hrs). Welcomes back officials from Public Safety, Justice. Resumes clause by clause. Currently on G4 (hunting gun ban). Chiang seeks unanimous consent to release “list” of newly banned hunting guns

Point of Order Lloyd: wants clarity on motion. Members agree to publish list. Damoff complains CSSA breached privilege and had published protected info. Damoff says this isn’t a hunting gun ban and refers to NZ etc and their semi auto ban. Says they’re weapons of war.

Says this will codify the previous gun ban in legislation, making it hard to reverse. Says hunters can use single shots or levers to hunt and semi auto is for battle. Brings up Dec 6 - Polytechnic shooting (32 years ago, every gun owner must pay).

Says all semi auto firearms are weapons of war and Conservatives must justify why they want them legal. (We’ve had them for over 100 years in Canada). Dancho strikes back asking if Damoff equates hunters with the Poly shooter?

Damoff says there have been a small number of times that a legal owner has committed a crime. Dancho says this is a gateway to a full ban on guns. Calls out Damoff for calling hunting guns “weapons of war”

Calls out the Liberals for sneaking this massive ban as an amendment. Why not just include this in the bill and let it be debated, testified too? Brings up the 92% increase in gang crime since Trudeau took office. Calls out rising gun violence, smuggling, 3D ghost guns.

Slams Libs for C5 which removes sentencing for serious gun crimes. Speaks about Remington, Browning, Winchester, Benelli. These are all hunting gun companies. Dancho says the Libs should not be trusted by hunters.

Speaks to heirloom firearms passed down through generations of hunters. Dancho slams the sneaky way Libs have done this, and no compensation. Speaks to indigenous use of SKS in hunting. Over 1M in Canada.

The list: firearmrights.ca/wp-content/upl…

Dancho continues, speaks to the danger of rural, remote, hunters and how they use semi auto to protect livestock, themselves. Speaks to how we could have had proper debate if they had followed proper procedures. Now they can’t rely on expert witnesses to speak.

Dancho slams Liberals for calling a Remington a “weapon of war”. Slams Damoff for saying we can just use something else (single shot). Says the Liberals are condescending and paternalistic.

Says this is an unprecedented attack and war on Canadian hunters.

Says this is a total insult on every hunter in this country. Speaks about no compensation for the millions of guns this bans. Slams Libs again for their lack of effort to reduce crime, violence and smuggling. Says spending $10B on punishing hunters is criminal.

Dancho says this is just the beginning. This needs to be explored. Says Conservatives will stand up for Canadians. Looks forward to hearing from millions of hunters across the country.

Fortin (BQ) also slams Libs for lack of work to reduce real crime.

Fortin says the list however, does meet their expectations. Says he does share some concern with the CPC that there isn’t clear definition on what should be banned. Says we must reduce proliferation of guns in QC. Says the Bloq will support G4 amendment anyways (hunting gun ban)

Lloyd begins. Says a red line has been crossed with this amendment. Says we have a social contract in this country, and it includes the gun community. Generations have cultivated safe gun culture. Gov’t has in the past, passed bills to reduce violence. But …

This amendment violates that social contract with rural people, hunters, indigenous. Points to CC where government can make gun regulations. Speaks to “reasonable use” for hunting and sport shooting. Says this amendment oversteps that.

Says he can appreciate Damoff saying they didn’t intend to target hunters but they did. Speaks to language in G4: “has the capacity to accept more than 5” even if we don’t have those mags. Guns made aren’t designed to be Canada compliant, mags are - but this captures too many.

This is the largest gun ban in Canadian history. Was never discussed in the election platform, no public consultation, no definition, no debate, no testimony. Was hidden in an amendment and not introduced at the beginning. Says it impugns democracy.

Lloyd continues, points out how badly committee went for the Liberals, flawed red flag measures. Can’t believe this massive ban was snuck in at this late stage. Says his right as a parliamentarian is violated. Pleads with Bloq to reconsider supporting this.

Speaks to the difference between Canada and the US. We are allies but were founded differently, Loyalists rejected the revolution. Offended that Chiang mentioned Cali law, introducing American style laws. Speaks to historical significance of Liberals always importing US ideas.

Lloyd speaks to social contract being broken by the Liberals. Why? Says law enforcement was clear it was smuggled guns and criminals committing violence, not hunters with Benelli’s. Says the Libs are using this as a wedge: urban/rural divide Says hunters never had to worry before

Says the Liberals violated the social contract with hunters for purely political reasons. Says vulnerable rural MP’s should be worried.

Says how this “list” includes the 2020 OIC guns and adds more.

- Rifle 449
- Shotgun 65

Officials confirm the government has the power and ability to ban these guns. Says they must be of the view these guns aren’t “reasonable” for hunting or sport shooting purposes. Says the Governor in Council could just ban all these guns by OIC too.

Lloyd points out there is no urgent need to ban these guns or they would have used OIC. There is no public safety concern, obviously. Asks about Damoff’s comments, how this makes it difficult to ever overturn. Asks about court challenges that may be affected by this. She says no

Well that’s false lol.

Asks about regulatory impact statement. Was there any consultation or study done on banning these hunting rifles?

Officials point to 2019 study.

Lloyd asks if hunting gun ban was supported in that study.

Lloyd brings up survey question from that 2019 study: do you want more to be done to limit rifles in Canada? 77% said no.

Says she’d have to ask the Minister. Lloyd says it’s hard to get answers from the Minister.

Asks if owners who have these hunting rifles be immediately breaking the law? She says an OIC will put it into force down the road after the bill. Lloyd points out they can keep it for election promises down the road - political not public safety measure.

Officials speak to amnesty from the OIC ban. Says gun owners are protected by that amnesty. Can’t confirm hunters would get an amnesty but says historically the Liberals did. No guarantee.

Asks if the Libs would still need to provide a justification? She says no.

They go back and forth about limitations. The Liberals are circumventing the 1995 law that limited the kind of guns governments could ban. They don’t even have to justify it.

Brings up bill of rights, property rights. Asks about due process.

Officials say Supreme Court ruled no right in Canada to own guns. He doesn’t dispute that, but this is about seizure of property without due process. Officials say guns aren’t protected as property. Lloyd asks if the bill of rights is even respected in Canada anymore?

Say’s government can’t confiscate property without compensation. Officials continue to say guns aren’t property 🤔

Lloyd says the government is trying to relieve themselves of the burden of compensating hunters.

Lloyd speaks to the massive GDP created by the tourist hunting industry. Do Americans have to comply with this ban?

Officials confirm, US or foreign hunters will have to comply with this hunting gun ban. This Will end the tourist hunting industry.

Has a study been done? No

Lloyd speaks about the 1.3M Canadian hunters who contribute to the GDP, follow laws - $13.2B contributed to the GDP. Why did this come so late in committee? Never studied? Why?

Lloyd concedes time to Motz.

Motz begins. Goes back to Damoff statement. Says someone must have written it for her. She loses it. Motz says good, she can wear the ignorance of her comments, lack of understanding of our gun laws, hunting and gun community.

Motz goes on. Says they added this amendment to avoid debate in the House. Asks what information they received to craft this hunting ban amendment. Liberals decline, officials decline. Motz says there will be massive backlash for this.

He’s right - get ready.

Motz says he believes they planned this secret hunting gun ban. Goes over the amendment description: in effect, this back door ban will render hundreds of thousands of guns illegal. Says average deer and moose guns will be prohibited now. Why? There’s nothing “military” about it?

Motz details how his grandson uses a semi auto to hunt because it allows a quick, humane follow up. Says this shows the ignorance of the Liberals on this issue. Speaks to discrimination, due process of law.

Officials say the government can take property, compensation is policy

Asks if the government can seize property, that is deemed prohibited. Officials say once the law comes into force that yes, this property becomes illegal to possess.

They don’t want to answer, but yes - the government can take your stuff. 100%

Officials say if there was any compensation plan, that would be done through government policy at a later date. May, or may not.

Asks what date they started working on G4. Can’t answer. Privileged.

Motz asks what is “assault style”? The guns in this amendment ban are common hunting guns.

Motz wonders if the Canadians who own these guns aren’t suddenly dangerous.

Officials can’t answer.

Damoff complains, officials are here to answer technical questions not offer opinions on government policy. Says Motz should take lessons from Lloyd on asking questions.

Motz asks how the government will carry out ban without help from provinces.

Officials say there are ways: surrender to police, export or deactivate.

Motz says this will be a super long process, gathering up millions more guns? Officials won’t answer.

Asks if G4 is charter compliant?

Officials say the charter statement was done at the start of C21. Motz says ok, but was a charter statement done specifically on G4? She says it’s in cabinet confidence. She says they only have to release the original charter statement.

Officials detail how the criteria was developed and updated. Motz asks about term “military STYLE assault rifles”. Officials say they expanded definition to include all these new guns. Official says there is no definition in law for assault “style”. Points to criteria description

Motz says large mags are already a prohibited device. Officials confirm this makes the gun that may possibly accept these mags, prohibited. Goes back and forth with her about magazine capacity, she says it’s about banning guns, not mags. Motz asks for evidence.

Officials say it’s based on their ability to have sustained “rapid fire” … (of 5 rounds??) 🤦🏼‍♀️

Motz speaks about actual military rifles. Officials speak to use of terminology.

Officials say they look at a range of factors, marketing and manufacturing data.

Motz wonders if they can just keep adding to the list. Officials say the term “variant” will help capture more, or new guns.

Motz speaks to the end damage to the hunting and firearm industry. Officials say hunters can refer to the banned list when choosing a gun.

She continues, says if manufacturers make a new gun to comply with this law, they’ll capture it in the ban as a “variant”.

Motz laments the secret nature of this amendment. Speaks to the reaction by hunters. Gangs must be laughing.

Motz says he doesn’t think owners will ever be compensated for this loss.

Says the cost of gun bans could be diverted to reducing crime, violence and gun smuggling instead.

Why do this?

Motz brings up his “Blind Date” on TVO with Mendocino. Talks about taking Marco to the range, meet people from the community. Talks about a young mom who’s kids were shot in a gang shooting. She said accountability for gun crimes. That clip didn’t make the show …

Motz laments how much money and time is wasted chasing legal gun owners, instead of reducing crime, violence and gun smuggling instead. Says he would support the government if they changed focus. Justice is a revolving door. Was a cop over 30 years s

Chair interrupts, wants Motz to get back to G4. Motz continues anyway 😉

Speaks about reverse onus, prove why you should get out of prison.

Chair recognizes Taleeb (Liberal).

Taleeb whines this is taking too long and the CPC is filibustering. Starts off speaking about Mosque shooting. Speaks about his grandfather coming to Canada and how it must evolve, our culture must evolve. Speaks about segregation, old times, women couldn’t vote.

Says the CPC can work with other parties to defeat motion. Says hunters support the hunting gun ban. Says CPC staffers were celebrating the fundraising opportunity in this. Says Lloyd should have rejected the convoy as a “patriot”. Point of order. Urges Taleeb to slow his roll

Taleeb continues. Brings up convoy again. (Not part of G4, C21). Goes on, says Conservatives wanted a niqab ban. Brings up SKS. Lists military conflicts that used SKS. Wants to know which guns the CPC agree should be banned. Says Conservatives want every gun “in our street”

Taleeb continues, speaks of Harper cuts #HarpersFault

Says Liberals have to catch up from Conservatives cuts. Says we shouldn’t allow every gun in our streets.

Says the facts are the CPC is using this hunting gun ban to divide Canadians … 🫤

Dares the Conservatives to get the NDP, BQ to help defeat the amendment. Says we are here to get this passed. Says using strong language makes Damoff get threats. Wants CPC to pick from the list what should be banned and what shouldn’t.

Says there is no sinister plot to hurt hunters and indigenous people by banning their hunting rifles and shotguns. Says these guns are weapons of war used to kill people of race. Says Mosque victims rely on them to protect them.

Point of order by Dancho.

Chair asks if Taleeb can pause. They’re running out of time.

Chair says they’ll pause for Dancho’s question. Asks about time added in previous meetings. Says she should be consulted. Says she deserves the respect of notifying her of time extensions.

Chair says sometimes it’s short notice. Says he will try and do better.

Meeting suspended

/Fin