Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,863

    Senate sitting 2019/5/27 - vote deferred

    Senator Don Plett's speech today was incredible.
    How many more times can he defer the vote? Can he defer it until the end of this parliament?
    -- GivenRight

  2. The Following 9 Users Like This Post By RangeBob

    awndray (05-27-2019), chrisc (05-28-2019), chuckbuster (05-28-2019), IJ22 (05-27-2019), Mark-II (05-27-2019), quest4justice (05-28-2019), Rory McCanuck (05-27-2019), ruger#1 (05-28-2019), Waterloomike (05-28-2019)

  3. #2
    Member awndray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    National Capital Region
    Posts
    10,270
    I just read the speech. It was brilliant!

  4. The Following User Liked This Post By awndray

    Rory McCanuck (05-28-2019)

  5. #3
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,863
    Quote Originally Posted by awndray View Post
    I just read the speech. It was brilliant!
    Well don't just say that, man; post it or the link !

  6. #4
    Member awndray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    National Capital Region
    Posts
    10,270
    My phone wont let me copy/paste from Facebook.

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...15496085497522

  7. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By awndray

    RangeBob (05-27-2019), ruger#1 (05-28-2019)

  8. #5
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,863
    "Colleagues, this Bill was introduced in the Other Place just over a year ago, on March 20th. It came to this Chamber last fall and has been the subject of much debate and discussion.
    At Second Reading, it was debated over 12 sittings by 18 senators who spoke to it, and by many others who asked questions.
    At committee we sat for more than 30 hours and heard from 81 witnesses, including two cabinet ministers.
    Report stage covered four more sittings, with four senators speaking to the report.
    Today, we find ourselves at what is expected to be the last Third Reading speech, having heard from 14 Senators.
    I say this not only to commend all senators for their participation, but to illustrate that we have covered a lot of ground with this Bill and have heard arguments from many different perspectives.
    And yet in spite of the participation and rigorous examination, I admit that I am concerned.
    I am concerned that we find ourselves exactly where we were before we began looking at this Bill.
    I suspect that if we had voted on this Bill when it arrived in this Chamber, the outcome would have been exactly the same as it will be when we are finished tonight.
    After all the time, research, debate, testimony, letters, emails, phone calls, discussions, questions, answers, and non-answers, we are finishing right where we began.
    The Senate Committee on National Security did an outstanding its job examining this Bill and bringing in amendments to improve it. These were simply ignored by this Chamber. And when we sought to reintroduce these individually, they were again unceremoniously rejected without true consideration.
    Colleagues, how is it possible that so many senators, who claim to be independent, consistently vote as a block in support of the Liberal party, and despite the evidence? How is this non-partisan?
    If ISG senators were truly independent, we would at least see their votes proportionately reflect the views of Canadians. Maybe not all the time, but at least some of the time.
    Yet that is far from what is happening. Instead, we are repeatedly seeing a wholesale endorsement of the government’s agenda.
    I understand that there may be some concern amongst senators opposite that it is not the appropriate role of this Chamber to challenge the elected House. But I would remind you that amending legislation in this House in no way prevents the Other Place from rejecting those amendments. This has happened many times in this parliamentary session, and repeatedly throughout history.
    Our job is to give sober second thought to the legislation that appears before us and – at times – this includes challenging the very premise of what is being proposed. If we repeatedly fail to do this, it brings into question the usefulness of this Chamber.
    We have a responsibility to look beyond the talking points, to challenge assumptions, and to require evidence-based policy.
    This has not happened with Bill C-71.
    Colleagues, as the Bill stands right now, nobody is happy with it. Gun owners are not happy and gun control advocates are not happy.
    On this side of the Chamber, we have at least acknowledged that fact, rather than making excuses for the government.
    But on the other side, have you noticed how many times ISG senators claim to support this Bill while at the same time making soft apologies for it? They repeatedly say things like, this is no “silver bullet” or this is not a “magic bullet”. On the one hand you’re endorsing it and on the other hand you’re apologizing for it.
    Right now, you have the opportunity to make a difference. And you are not.
    So let me ask you this: If Bill C-71 were a term paper, what grade would you give it?
    I would give it an “F”. The student has completely failed to address the objective of the assignment, which was to increase public safety.
    But if you are not prepared to give it an “A-plus”, then where are the corrections? Where are the amendments? Why are you about to send this terrible Bill back to the Other Place, rubber-stamped and ready for implementation, if it’s broken or incomplete?
    I’m not saying you must support our amendments if you don’t believe in them. But where are your amendments? I find it hard to believe that you cannot think of one way to make this Bill better.
    You’ve rejected all of our efforts to improve this Bill, and yet you’ve made none of your own. What are Canadians supposed to make of this?
    I know that every senator in this Chamber supports measures that increase public safety.
    And yet instead of taking action to do so – ANY action – you quietly fall into line behind your leader.
    Let’s be clear, we all know what is going on here. Either through ignorance, intimidation, or deference, you are acting like a government caucus while protesting loudly that you are not.
    While claiming to be independent, your actions say the exact opposite.
    Just last week, we saw Senator Woo telling the Hill Times that if there was no deal reached on Bill C-69 at committee, then senators on the committee would have voted on each amendment “along the lines of which group we belong to”.
    How is that independent?
    Now some of you may not recognize this, but what Senator Woo is describing is how a whipped caucus works. You are acting like the very thing you to tell us over and over again that you are not.
    While calling yourselves independents, you will stand tonight and vote as a block – with only a handful of exceptions – to send this Bill back to the Other Place unamended.
    And let there be no mistake, this is exactly what we are about to see. The ISG caucus has been summoned by their whip to be present in the Chamber tonight – in force – to pass the government’s legislation without amendment. And, your whip is taking attendance.
    Senators, I am the whip of the Conservative caucus in the Senate. I understand the role of a whip. And when I see it, I recognize it. Well my friends, for the record, you are being whipped.
    Your voting patterns on this legislation and on proposed amendments have not been based on the evidence or the arguments. They have clearly been based only on your loyalty to the government and the direction of your whip.
    So I am not standing here trying to change your minds. I know that is an effort in futility. I am standing here because there are millions of Canadians who care about this legislation. They care about what it was supposed to do. They care about dealing with gun violence and gang violence.
    They may have even believed the Liberal government’s campaign promises to do something about it, and they deserve to know the truth about this legislation – that it is a sham and a farce, and it will do absolutely NOTHING to increase public safety.
    I would like to review the Liberal party’s election promise on the issue before us. What exactly did they promise, and does this Bill fulfill that promise or even move us closer toward it?
    In their platform, on page 54, the Liberal party promised to do the following: (and I quote)
    “GUNS: We will take action to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets… We will take pragmatic action to make it harder for criminals to get, and use, handguns and assault weapons.”
    THAT was the promise.
    And yet, if you look at Bill C-71, it has NOTHING to do with gangs.
    It has NOTHING to do with getting handguns and assault weapons off our streets.
    And it does NOTHING to make it harder for criminals to get, and use, handguns and assault weapons.
    Instead, this Bill harasses law-abiding gun owners while giving gangs and criminals a pass.
    Rather than fulfilling campaign promises, this Bill breaks them.
    Colleagues, no one is denying that there are very real concerns about gun violence in Canada. But suggesting that we are going to deal with these concerns by developing policies which target licensed gun owners is nothing short of fantasy.
    If the government wants to live in a make-believe world, there is little we can do to stop it, this side of the election. But I urge you not to play their game.
    From the very beginning of this debate, the Trudeau government’s insincerity has been evident.
    They have repeatedly claimed that this Bill “prioritizes public safety and effective police work.” And yet when you scratch the surface, you quickly find out that it does neither.
    It reminds me of an old proverb which says, “Like clouds and wind without rain is a man who boasts of a gift he does not give.”
    Justin Trudeau talks like he’s serious about dealing with gangs and crime, but his actions are little more than empty, fluffy promises which deliver nothing.
    When Bill C-71was introduced in the Other Place, Minister Goodale began by painting a grim picture. He said:
    “Crime rates generally in Canada have been on the decline for decades… However, offences involving firearms are bucking the positive trend.”
    Minister Goodale repeated this assertion both at the House of Commons committee and at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. There, he insisted that:
    “While crime rates generally have been steadily falling in Canada for decades, we have seen a sharp increase in the number of criminal incidents involving firearms.”
    Colleagues, the evidence says this assertion is nonsense. No matter which metric you look at – overall crime rates, the violent crime rate, or the crime severity index – the last 20 years of statistics clearly show that gun crime and overall crime rates follow the same arc:
    When crime goes up, gun crime goes up with it. And when crime goes down, gun crime goes down as well.
    The suggestion that gun crime is rising while overall crime is dropping is simply not true.
    However, as I said earlier, this does not mean we don’t have a problem. We do. But if you look at the evidence, you will find that it has nothing to do with making sure law-abiding gun owners gets special permission to take their restricted firearms to the gunsmith. It has nothing to do with taking away their only real avenue of appeal when their firearms get reclassified and are rendered valueless. It has nothing to do with the fact that background checks currently cover 5 years instead of a lifetime.
    It has nothing to do with any of these things. Bill C-71 is chock-full of feel-good, aspirational notions that are designed to leave the impression of taking action, while accomplishing absolutely nothing.
    Colleagues, I encourage you to take a closer look at Statistics Canada’s reports on homicide by firearms. If you do, will see that at least three things stand out: Number one, there has been a failure to enforce our existing gun laws; number two, there is a disproportionate homicide rate by indigenous persons; and, number three, we are suffering from rising gang violence.
    And yet Bill C-71 completely ignores every single one of these.
    Consider the following:
    Between 2014 and 2017, sixty-six percent of homicides by firearm were committed by people with criminal records. This tells us that up to two-thirds of gun homicides could be the consequence of a failure to properly enforce our current gun laws. Because in many cases, it is already illegal for someone with a criminal record to possess a firearm.
    In every case where a gun homicide was committed by a person who was ineligible to possess that firearm, more regulation would have done nothing to save these lives. The problem was a lack of enforcement of our existing gun laws.
    Secondly, over the same period (2014 to 2017), 68 percent of all homicides were committed with a restricted or prohibited weapon. And yet restricted and prohibited firearms already registered and tightly controlled.
    This should be a red flag for anyone who is paying attention. If gun control measures for restricted firearms are not working, what makes us think that more regulations for non-restricted firearms will suddenly be effective?
    Thirdly, according to Statistics Canada, 38 percent of all homicides in 2017 were committed by Indigenous persons. In the vast majority of these homicides, the victims were Indigenous as well.
    When you consider this in context of the size of the Indigenous population, it means that across Canada, an Indigenous person is 12 times more likely to commit homicide than a non-Indigenous person. Broken down by province, it works out to 11 times more likely in Alberta, 13 times in Manitoba, and 43 times in Saskatchewan.
    Minister Goodale has gone out of his way to point out that the problem with firearms violence is not just because of gangs in Toronto, noting that it’s also found in rural areas – especially in prairie provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan. But what he didn’t bother to tell you, is that in Manitoba, 67% of homicides with a firearm in rural areas are committed by Indigenous persons. In Saskatchewan the number is 77%.
    Colleagues, if you haven’t looked at the evidence, then these numbers might shock you. But don’t misunderstand me. I am NOT blaming Indigenous people for firearms violence.
    What I am doing, is pointing out that there is a tragedy unfolding in slow motion in Indigenous communities and families, right before our eyes. And yet the Liberal government is ignoring this tragedy, pretending to be oblivious to the fact that there are much deeper societal issues at play here that will NOT be addressed by simply piling on more gun laws.
    Frankly, I am at a bit of a loss as to how my honourable colleagues Senator Sinclair or Senator McCallum believe this Bill addresses ANY of the root issues behind these tragic numbers. Why are not all the Indigenous senators opposite opposing this Bill and demanding real action and real answers which would actually help to reduce firearms crime and the resulting victimization? And if you are not going to oppose it, then where are the amendments? Where are the improvements?
    Honourable Senators, the other thing we learn from Statistics Canada, is that between 1991 and 2017, ninety percent of homicides were solved.
    But only if gangs were not involved.
    When homicides are gang-related, the solve rate drops to 44 percent.
    If we look at the years 2014 – 2017, this means that with an average of 206 homicides committed with a firearm each year, about 70 were left unsolved each and every year. Approximately 57 of these 70 unsolved homicides would have been gang-related.
    In other words, between 2014 and 2017, approximately 280 murderers have been left to roam free on our streets. And the majority of these – 228 – are gang members.
    You might want to let that sink in.
    If the government was serious about preventing homicides by firearms and prioritizing public safety, getting known murderers off our streets would be their top priority.
    But it’s not. This Bill will have zero impact on gangs and criminals.
    Instead, Minister Goodale is busy making scapegoats out of law-abiding gun owners – saddling them with more paperwork, more hoops to jump, and more threats of criminal charges – all the while pretending that this will get criminals off our streets.
    The assertion is absurd, and gun owners are tired of the charade.
    Instead of taking substantive action to deal with real issues, the Liberal government is splashing around in the shallow end, pretending to be doing something important.
    This is not the time to be playing politics. This is a time to understand what is really going on and take meaningful action to change the current trajectory and actually save lives!
    Colleagues, facts, research, and statistics matter. But the problem we have seen in this debate is that it is too easy to simply quote a study that supports your position.
    This is true on many subjects, but it is particularly true when it comes to the question of the effectiveness of gun control. One person will hold up a study that says gun control works. The next person will hold up a study that says it doesn’t work. People pick the one that best aligns with their view and use that to endorse their position. So how do you know what the truth is?
    In 2016, the B.C. Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research did something different. Rather than simply producing another study on the matter, they undertook an extensive literature review of all the existing studies.
    These were studies which had examined,
    “the various strategies and processes that have been tried in Canada and internationally to reduce or remove illegal firearms from circulation, particularly from offenders.”
    The focus of the review was on,
    “research published in English that evaluates legislative attempts, police-led, and community-led programs, tactics, or interdictions designed to address the issue of illegal firearm possession and use.”
    So instead of just producing one more study, the Centre took a step back and looked at all studies that had already been published, in order to review their findings. You cannot easily dismiss such an approach if you’re interested in the facts.
    At the end of the review, they concluded the following:
    “… the lack of reliable empirical data on firearms and violence, including suicides, makes it virtually impossible to undertake comparative analysis or the ability to develop more effective responses. In sum, the current evidence is generally inconclusive and suffers from a range of methodological challenges and limitations.”
    If you’re one of those who like to argue for more gun control based on an isolated study here and there, this will not come as good news. But these are the facts:
    “the current evidence is generally inconclusive”.
    Now the good news is, that something CAN be done about gun violence. The review found the following:
    “The research literature … demonstrates that gun violence can be reduced by the police when they engage in sustained, strategic, and intelligence-led enforcement practices that targets prolific offenders and gangs, and prolific locations where gun violence occurs.”
    Colleagues, this is exactly what a Conservative government would do. Instead of fiddling on the margins with ineffective measures based on evidence that has been found to be “generally inconclusive”, a Conservative government would take clear and decisive action to deal with gangs, illegal guns and criminals.
    Contrast this with Justin Trudeau who has softened Canada’s approach to tackling gang crime by reducing its penalties to as little as an administrative fine.
    A Conservative government would end automatic bail for known gang members, making them prove to a court that they should be eligible for bail. It would deliver tougher sentences for ordering gang crime and new sentences for violent gang crime.
    This is the kind of leadership Canadians need.
    But instead, here’s where we find ourselves today: In just a few minutes we’re going to have a vote on Bill C-71. And in spite of the fact that this Bill is not supported by the facts, the evidence, or the research, the majority of Senators in this Chamber are going to vote in favour of it.
    In spite of the fact that it ignores the real problems, fails to listen to either the gun owners or the victims of gun violence, this Chamber will send it back to the Other Place unamended.
    This is a tragedy, colleagues. Because it’s not just law-abiding firearms owners who are not being heard. It’s also the communities being rocked by crime. It’s the families that have been torn apart. It’s the moms and dads, sisters and brothers, friends and acquaintances of victims of gun crime.
    You, and this government, are failing them by passing this legislation.
    Because although the Liberal promise was a good one: “We will take action to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets” – this Bill does not take even one tiny baby step toward fulfilling that promise.
    But if that was not bad enough, it gets worse. This Bill implements a backdoor gun registry.
    Now I know that there is a little clause in the Bill which says it’s not introducing a registry, but this, quite frankly, means nothing. In the words of committee witness Dr. Teri Bryant, “Is a duck a duck if you don’t call it a duck?”
    Colleagues, it’s a duck.
    Back on June 29, 2012, the Conservative government registered a regulation which stated the following:
    “A person cannot be required, as a condition of a licence that is issued under the Firearms Act, (a) to collect information with respect to the transfer of a non-restricted firearm; (b) if they collect such information, to keep a record of it; or (c) if they keep such a record, to keep it in a form that combines information that identifies the transferee with information that identifies an individual firearm, links such information, or enables such information to be combined or linked.”
    At the time, then-Minister Vic Toews appeared before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to explain why this regulation was necessary to ensure that such information should not be collected. This is what he said:
    “The real purpose of this regulation is simply to clarify the effect of Bill C-19, that is, to prevent the establishment of another long-gun registry through other means, whether it is through information collected through CFOs or otherwise.”
    Bill C-71 is specifically designed to override this regulation.
    So how is it, that Minister Toews could clearly see that collecting information about the transfer of non-restricted firearms creates a long-gun registry by another means, and yet Minister Goodale claims to be oblivious to this fact?
    Colleagues, this legislation fails on not one, but two counts:
    Number one, it completely fails to implement the government’s promise to “take action to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets.” And number two, it cynically breaks the government’s promise to “not create a new national long-gun registry.”
    There is only one appropriate response for this Chamber to take in such a situation: This Bill should be defeated.
    In closing, I’d like to leave you with this thought:
    Gun control advocates often like to use the expression, “If it saves one life, then it’s worth it.” But what they fail to recognize is, that if the same amount of effort and money utilized in a different manner would save ten lives, then refusing to do so and saving only one is criminal.
    Yet this government has repeatedly refused to acknowledge what we all know to be true: Public resources are limited, and the budget will not balance itself.
    Tax dollars should be allocated in the most efficient, effective manner possible in order to achieve the greatest possible impact and best public policy outcome.
    Colleagues, it is indisputable that Bill C-71 utterly and tragically fails to do this, and it needs to be defeated.
    Thank you."
    Senator Don Plett

  9. The Following 19 Users Like This Post By RangeBob

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked

    2012Cvoguy (05-28-2019), awndray (05-27-2019), Billythreefeathers (05-28-2019), chrisc (05-28-2019), chuckbuster (05-28-2019), Curly1 (05-28-2019), Doug_M (05-28-2019), Hidyn (05-28-2019), joe6167 (05-28-2019), jwolfe (06-02-2019), kennymo (05-28-2019), KleeR (05-28-2019), Neil Burke (05-28-2019), quest4justice (05-28-2019), ruger#1 (05-28-2019), Smc (05-28-2019), stewbud (05-28-2019), TJSpeller (05-28-2019), Waterloomike (05-28-2019)

  10. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    North Vancouver
    Posts
    2,458

  11. The Following 7 Users Like This Post By ESnel

    2012Cvoguy (05-28-2019), Billythreefeathers (05-28-2019), Doug_M (05-28-2019), Grizz (05-29-2019), Petamocto (05-28-2019), Rory McCanuck (05-28-2019), ruger#1 (05-28-2019)

  12. #7
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    39,863

  13. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Just left of Sask.
    Posts
    1,913
    Good speech, too bad it will fall on deaf ears. I hope he doesn't get too much crap about including the indigenous portions.
    What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

  14. #9
    Senior Member Petamocto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Rusagonis/Waasis, NB
    Posts
    6,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Swingerguy View Post
    Good speech, too bad it will fall on deaf ears. I hope he doesn't get too much crap about including the indigenous portions.
    If the SJWs attack him because he brought up Natives in a context that worries about Native homicide (and victim) rates, that helps our side because average Canadians are sick of the virtue signalling.
    Don’t order from Wolverine Supplies. PM me for details.

  15. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By Petamocto

    awndray (05-28-2019), Billythreefeathers (05-28-2019), Hidyn (05-28-2019), Rory McCanuck (05-28-2019)

  16. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    879
    As much as M.Plett's speech makes sense,and I think He comes across so that anyone can understand what He's saying,the lie-brals want to disarm us.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •