Senate bill S-223 read for second time

Senator Hervieux-Payette during S-223 speech: “Nobody is opposed to registering their car for … so I think we should do the same thing for firearms”


Senator Hervieux-Payette took to the Senate floor today to read her proposed bill S-223, deceptively titled Strengthening Canadians’ Security and Promoting Hunting and Recreational Shooting Act, for the second time. The bill, which we previously reported on here, aims to further restrict lawful gun ownership in Canada to “hunting firearms” (the definition of which is intentionally absent of all semi-automatic centrefire firearms), to replace the term restricted with circumscribed, to make the transportation of circumscribed firearms possible only for “transporters” (a dedicated transportation business), to prohibit the storage of circumscribed firearms in a home, and, among others, reinstate a new registry for all firearms.

Below: Senator Hervieux-Payette’s speech, as voiced by Senate translator, on her bill S-223

During her speech, Senator Payette made an appeal to the emotions by reminding the Senate of the recent events in La Loche, Saskatchewan, as well as oft-mentioned tragedies from the Dawson College shooting in 2006 to the shooting deaths of three RCMP officers at the hands of Justin Bourque in 2014 – going so far as to quoting Bourque’s lawyer as saying “no hunter needs a weapon like the one Mr. Bourque used – no one” (in reference to the M305 used in the Moncton killings) and attributing similar quotes to former police officers and hunters she claims she has consulted with.

Most disturbingly, however, is her accusations that the Senate and the House of Commons appealed to the “gun lobby” in Canada instead of Canadians on the matters of C-19 (Ending the Long Gun Registry Act) and C-42 (Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act) not realizing that Canada’s “gun lobby” are the Canadians she so vehemently pretends she wants to protect – all the while likening the Canadian gun lobby to that of the US, calling the US policy on firearms a “failure”, and using cherry-picked and poorly-represented American statistics to support her position on gun control.

It is important to note, however, that second reading of S-223 has not been completed. A motion was carried to adjourn the debate until Senate’s next sitting scheduled for tomorrow. It is also important to note that experts believe this bill will be defeated during this stage much like it had been last year, especially given the Conservative majority in the Senate.


Official Transcript:

Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette moved second reading of Bill S- 223, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential changes to other Acts.

She said: Honourable senators, as most of you probably know, I have always been independent and stood up for my ideas. As a Quebecer, I believe in gun control policies, but I also defend the sport of hunting. I used to go hunting with my father when I was younger. In that context, I am reintroducing my bill to strengthen Canadians’ security and promote hunting and recreational shooting.

The recent events in the indigenous community of La Loche were certainly chilling. This was a disastrous tragedy for the victims’ families, to whom I offer my deepest condolences. It is too late now to comment on the facts. We must allow the investigation to move forward, but we know some of the key factors that contributed to the situation.

Poverty, bullying, and lack of mental health resources are quite likely factors that led a 17-year-old boy to do something unthinkable and shoot innocent people at a school in the small Alberta community.

Furthermore, it seems that the problem of minors having access to guns is another important factor. I have been to Canada’s North many times during my career, both as a member of the other place and as a senator, in order to advocate for the seal hunt. I can tell you that the vast majority of indigenous people use hunting rifles appropriately. I have come to conclusion that in the North, firearms are used as a tool for subsistence hunting, while in the South, people seem to be increasingly obsessed with firearms and less interested in using them for the pleasure of eating deer meat or other types of venison.

This came to me when I was asked by a journalist to comment on the dramatic increase in the popularity of restricted firearms, which are essentially firearms that are capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and handguns.

Honourable colleagues, the numbers are astounding. In five years, the number of people with a possession and acquisition licence for restricted firearms has jumped by 75 per cent in Canada.

These weapons were designed strictly for military purposes. Although I understand that they can be used for recreational shooting, they are simply of no use for hunting.

I would like to emphasize that my bill does not go after honest citizens who obey the law. On the contrary, the main objective of this bill is to encourage hunting and recreational shooting in Canada while ensuring the Canadians’ security. Its purpose is threefold: first, to ensure the security of all Canadians; second, to ensure that people who love hunting and recreational shooting have the opportunity to engage in those activities safely; third, to remove from our homes any firearm not used for hunting.

Honourable senators, the former Conservative government completely transformed our firearms regime. When the Conservatives were in power, Canada was one of the few countries to loosen gun control measures. After the 2006 Dawson College shooting, where one young woman was killed and 19 others were injured by gunfire, and the 2014 Moncton shooting, where three RCMP officers were killed and two others were injured, the Harper government passed Bill C-19, which abolished the long gun registry, and Bill C-42, which its authors boasted was a common sense bill.

All of that is to say that a responsible government certainly would not have acted in this way. Remember the events at the École Polytechnique in 1989, motivated by Marc Lépine’s misogyny. No one can forget the terrible evening of December 6, 1989, when 14 young women were murdered in cold blood, simply because they were women.

The Chrétien government took action and showed leadership when it passed Bill C-68 in 1995, which would become the Firearms Act. Thanks to that government, we boast a low firearm-related death rate, a fact that is now ironically used as an argument by the gun lobby. Our chance of being killed by a gun is the same as our chance of being killed by lightning, because of the gun control policies introduced by a previous Liberal government.

We cannot stick our heads in the sand about the near-daily events to the south of us, where our neighbours do not have a system to keep the public safe like the one we have in Canada. The statistics speak for themselves. More than 30,000 people were killed by guns in the United States in 2011, compared to 698 in Canada. During President Obama’s two terms, there have been nine mass shootings that have led to the unnecessary death of 119 innocent victims who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

When President Obama sounded the alarm in January, his words resonated here in Canada, and I saw this for myself on television. No one can remain unmoved by his impassioned plea to change the American public’s view of firearms. Like Prime Minister Chrétien, President Obama took action. In spite of the limited legal framework of his office and the conservative majority in Congress, he managed to implement the Common Sense Gun Safety Reform.

Honourable senators, let me address the various shootings in the U.S. by explaining a fundamental difference between the firearms system in Canada and of the system in the U.S.: the right to own or bear a firearm in Canada is not enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.

Similarly, restaurants have to pay fees to various municipal and provincial agencies to be able to sell and serve alcoholic products to their customers because it is a privilege to sell alcoholic products in Canadian cities. Many other activities have to be regulated as well.


Here are the seven bold and progressive measures that I want to implement with this legislation. I hope you will share my opinion.

First, the bill overhauls the current firearms program by prohibiting all firearms in Canada from being kept in dwelling- houses, except for hunting firearms and collectors’ firearms, which receive special treatment.

Second, it redefines two of the three existing classes of firearms by creating the hunting firearm category and the circumscribed firearm category, which includes most of the firearms that were restricted under the previous program.

Third, it permits the possession of hunting firearms in dwelling- houses and restricts the use and storage of circumscribed firearms to shooting clubs.

Fourth, it limits the transport of circumscribed firearms to specialized transporters, similar to Brink’s, which have no interest other than providing secure transportation, thus strengthening control over the movement of firearms.

Fifth, the bill replaces the term “registration certificate” with “inscription certificate.” I want to emphasize that the bill does not reinstate the Canadian unrestricted firearms registry. That is why we wanted to replace the term “registration” with “inscription,” which is more appropriate.

Sixth, the bill strengthens the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Commissioner of Firearms with a statutory provision.

Seventh, the bill undoes all the provisions of Bill C-42, except for the prohibition on obtaining a possession and acquisition licence following a domestic violence conviction.

We will now review in detail these seven measures.

To begin with, I believe that we must reverse the current regime by only allowing hunting firearms to be kept within a dwelling.

It is not a big secret that the Canadian gun lobby became vastly more powerful during the Harper government’s tenure.

Canada’s National Firearm Association currently has more than 75,000 members. I have to point out that they send me emails every day. This group has been constantly lobbying the government for many years. Its message is simplistic. It maintains that guns don’t kill people, people do.

I do not subscribe to this narrow view. People kill one another with firearms. I am certain that all honourable members of this chamber remember the horrible tragedy that took place on December 14, 2012, when Adam Lanza, a 20-year-old autistic man, committed an unimaginable act, opening fire in an elementary school with a semi-automatic assault rifle. Twenty children between the ages of six and seven and six staff members were murdered in a cowardly manner.

Although Adam Lanza’s actions were unthinkable and incomprehensible, we cannot place all the blame on him. This young man suffered from mental illness and social disabilities. He should never have had access to this type of firearm. The blame should be placed on the gun lobby, which constantly promotes violence and the nonsense of arming civilians.

When these incidents occur, the focus is too often on the individual who committed the massacre and not on the part played by the gun lobby and its rhetoric. In a free and democratic society like ours, we cannot be satisfied with simply managing the symptoms; we also have to attack the root causes.

People here in Canada will recall the tragic events of 2014, when Justin Bourque went on a murderous rampage and opened fire on RCMP officers. Three police officers were killed and two others were seriously injured in the shooting. Much like Adam Lanza, Mr. Bourque was a real gun fanatic. Unlike the vast majority of criminals who use firearms to commit crimes, Mr. Bourque had duly registered all of his weapons. He had all the necessary permits.

The proposed change to the current system, which would authorize only hunting weapons in dwellings, is a strong response to the false claims of the gun lobby. Unlike the gun lobby, I am not trying to sell weapons; I only want to protect the safety of Canadians.

The safety of our fellow citizens leads me to the second point of my bill: it redefines two of the three existing classes of firearms.

This major change to the definitions will translate into a clearer distinction between the firearms that could reasonably be used for hunting — and therefore can be kept in a dwelling in accordance with the appropriate regulations — and the firearms used by sport shooters in shooting clubs that must be stored at those clubs.

What, then, are those definitions?

A hunting firearm is defined as any firearm with a smoothbore or striated barrel that is more than 470 mm long, in other words a shotgun or rifle. Fear not, for I have not made any of this up. Semi-automatic weapons are not included in the definition of hunting firearm, with the exception of 22-calibre rimfire semi- automatic rifles.

Many people have asked me whether semi-automatic hunting rifles, which are more commonly known as shotguns, are included in the definitions of hunting firearms. The answer is yes.

This new definition of hunting firearm is based on information from hunters and a Canadian Firearms Safety Course instructor. In fact, when the bill was being examined, the instructors strongly advised against using semi-automatic weapons for hunting because of the many accidents that they cause.

Bill S-223 repeals the privilege of those with a possession and acquisition licence to keep at their dwelling-house any centre-fire semi-automatic rifles. However, Bill S-223 does not prohibit the right to use such rifles. Those who are passionate about handling these rifles and would like to continue pursuing their passion can do so at shooting ranges, where these rifles would be stored. I want my bill to make sport shooting and its related businesses safe.

Therefore, I am not against firearms, but I support their use in a safe manner.

Thus, with Bill S-223, any holder of a possession and acquisition licence will be able to acquire and own a centre-fire rifle and use it at a shooting club designated for that purpose. When the holder of the licence has finished his shooting practice, he will have to store his firearm at the shooting club.

The distinction between a 22-calibre rim-fire semi-automatic rifle and a centre-fire semi-automatic rifle is a key aspect of my bill.

The United Kingdom made that same distinction after the terrible events in Hungerford. In 1987, a crazed gunman named Michael Ryan murdered 16 people, including his own mother. Carrying a handgun and two semi-automatic rifles — a Type 56 assault rifle, which is a Chinese variant of the AK-47 assault rifle, and an M1 Carbine — Ryan also injured 14 other people before committing suicide. According to the authorities, there was no motive for Ryan’s murder spree. Another important fact is that Ryan apparently had legal possession of all of his firearms in accordance with British laws at the time.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher promptly responded to this horrible tragedy the following year. The Iron Lady’s Conservative government completely banned all semi-automatic centre-fire rifles in the United Kingdom and restricted the use of hunting rifles to those with a maximum capacity of three shells. The only firearms that have remained legal in the United Kingdom are 22- calibre semi-automatic rimfire rifles.

Britain’s commitment to strict firearms policies did not stop in 1988, however, because in 1996, nine years after the Hungerford tragedy, Great Britain went through the shock of another shooting rampage. A man named Thomas Hamilton entered a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and killed 16 children aged four and five, as well as their physical education teacher, before killing himself. Hamilton legally owned two hunting rifles and a handgun. The handgun used in the massacre had been properly registered.


In response to the massacre, the British government called on Lord William Douglas Cullen to chair a royal commission to investigate the circumstances that caused Hamilton to commit such an act and, more importantly, to make recommendations to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.

In his report, Lord Cullen recommended that the government introduce tighter controls on gun ownership. In response to the Cullen report, the British government passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. Thus, the law now prohibits all civilians from owning and storing most handguns in a private dwelling in Great Britain.

These gun control policies have had some impressive results. In 2011, there were just 38 gun deaths in Britain, while in the same year, Canada had 153 gun deaths, although its population less than half that of Britain. According to other 2011 data, the British homicide rate is apparently lower than Canada’s, at 0.06 per 100,000 people, compared to 0.45 per 100,000 people in Canada. All of the measures taken by the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1997 prove once again that enforcing strict gun control and removing guns from homes helps lower the number of gun-related homicides.

Bill S-223 is based on a proven model. I don’t mind hearing all of the criticisms of my bill and getting all those tweets. However, those that attack a proven model in favour of the American model, which is clearly a security failure, make no sense. All they do is serve the interests of an industry and certainly not the interests of the Americans.

Bill S-223 replaces the existing category of restricted firearms with the category of circumscribed firearms. A circumscribed firearm is any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm, that has a barrel equal to or less than 470 millimetres, such as handguns or firearms that are capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner.

As the term implies, those who hold a possession and acquisition licence for such a category of firearm will be able to use and store these weapons only at a shooting club. That is the third point in my bill. I made sure that the term “circumscribed firearms” includes the notion of location.

Honourable senators, there is a reason why my bill classifies these weapons as circumscribed firearms. They have been used to commit countless murders in Canada. I am thinking of Marc Lépine, Kimveer Gill and Justin Bourque. The weapons in their arsenals all had something in common. They all complied with the provisions of the Firearms Act regarding centre-fire semi- automatic rifles. These weapons are extremely dangerous and are not useful for hunting. They therefore do not belong in a dwelling-house.

Justin Bourque’s lawyer, David Lutz, told me much the same thing. On October 31, 2014, just a few minutes after his client was sentenced, Mr. Lutz made an impassioned plea against firearms at the entrance to the Moncton courthouse. This is what he told the CBC:

Three police officers are dead in Moncton and another in Ottawa because the wrong people were in possession of firearms that should have been prohibited.

He went on to say, and I quote:

No hunter needs a firearm like the one Bourque used. None.

Fourth, Bill S-223 increases control over the movement of these semi-automatic weapons. Owners of such firearms who need to move them, for example to store them at a different shooting club or to participate in a competition, will have to use an outside service or specialized carrier to transport them.

After the previous bill was introduced, I received a number of complaints about the outrageous costs associated with storing circumscribed firearms. I tell them that it is not up to the legislator to adapt to shooting clubs and the gun lobby. It is up to businesses and lobby groups to adapt to our firearms measures, first, for the security of Canadians, and second, to promote the sport.

My staff and I consulted a number of experts, including former police officers. They all told us that centre-fire semi-automatic rifles are very dangerous compared to other weapons. They stressed that there is no need to keep such a firearm in a dwelling- house. The U.S. model proves that the more firearms are circulating in a country, the higher the homicide rate is. Bill S- 223 seeks to strengthen Canadians’ security.

My fifth point has to do with replacing the registration certificate with an inscription certificate. To me, words have meaning. Bill S-223 acknowledges the disappearance of the Canadian firearms registry. I will not get into that. I am not happy about the disappearance of this registry, which was another Conservative measure to satisfy the firearms lobby — and I will note that Quebec is in the process of creating its own registry. However, I decided that my bill would not be about that measure so as not to sidetrack the debate on my bill.

The term “registration certificate” evokes the idea of a registry. The term “registration” evokes the notion of privilege. “Inscription certificate” is more neutral and doesn’t have the same connotation as “registration certificate.” I think the term “inscription certificate” is quite apt in the case of circumscribed firearms.

My sixth point is that Bill S-223 reinforces the role of the RCMP and the Commissioner of Firearms by setting out their responsibilities in the firearms classification process, which is not found in the existing legislation. To be more specific, under Bill S- 223, and unlike Bill C-42, in making regulations, the Governor-in- Council will have to consider the recommendations of the Commissioner of Firearms when he uses his discretionary power to designate a hunting firearm. Furthermore, the Governor-in-Council will not have the discretionary power to designate a firearm other than a hunting firearm, also unlike Bill C-42. That is an important addition to the existing law because our laws are not explicitly clear about the role of these individuals in the classification of firearms.

Furthermore, Bill S-223, again unlike Bill C-42, does not enable the government to unilaterally decide to declassify a firearm or to overrule the RCMP, that is, take away its authority to assess the level of danger. The Swiss Arms matter handled by former public safety minister Steven Blaney is an excellent example.

In 2014, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted an investigation after receiving complaints that these semi-automatic guns could be easily converted into automatic weapons. As a result of that investigation, the RCMP prohibited Swiss Arms firearms. A number of gun lobbyists were furious and pressured the Conservative government to overrule the RCMP’s decision.

Since the law at the time did not allow for the declassification of a firearm, on March 13, 2014, Minister Blaney announced a two- year amnesty to protect owners of these firearms from the harsh penalties that his own government had enacted through Bill C-10 in 2012, which seemed absurd. The same minister who enacted that legislation went back on his own bill. Minister Blaney announced the following in a press release dated February 28, 2014, and I quote:

. . . I was troubled to learn of a decision made by unelected bureaucrats to prohibit a number of rifles imported from Switzerland.

He was talking about the RCMP. He went on to say that he would take steps to make sure that this never happened again.

In other words, the minister at the time did not like it when the people responsible for Canadians’ safety took measures that conflicted with the interests of the gun lobby. He therefore proposed measures in Bill C-42 to give cabinet the discretionary power to “declassify” firearms, even if that went against the RCMP’s recommendations.

My seventh and last point is that my bill repeals all of the amendments that Bill C-42 made to the Canadian Firearms Scheme, with the exception of the provision that states that a person convicted of domestic violence can never receive a licence to possess or acquire a firearm.


I will conclude my explanation of the text of my bill — which, by the way, is quite lengthy — by repeating its title: Strengthening Canadians’ Security and Promoting Hunting and Recreational Shooting Act. I will not address the issue of security any further. I have already sufficiently explained how this bill will really benefit Canadians in that regard. However, what about promoting hunting and recreational shooting?

Bill S-223 narrows the definition of hunting firearms and makes them the only firearms that can legally be in users’ possession in Canada. It confirms the legitimacy of hunting, granting these firearms a privilege that no other firearms possess. It does not restore the gun registry. In other words, this bill supports hunting and hunters, and I am delighted about that. Furthermore, I am certain that if my father were still with us, he would be pleased with the bill.

The restrictive definition of hunting firearm that I used in my bill is based on guidance I had from hunters and an instructor with the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and on the British model. Under this bill, any firearms owned by hunters must really be prescribed for hunting. The image of hunters should therefore be enhanced in the eyes of the public.

As for shooting clubs, the new classification described in my bill, specifically the new category of circumscribed firearms, will make it possible to develop a market while ensuring safety. In fact, restricting the use of semi-automatic firearms other than 22- calibre firearms to shooting clubs and requiring them to be stored at the club will automatically increase activity at those clubs, which, with some facilities planning, could even become gun shops or could partner with them.

In closing, I would like to thank the team of Senate lawyers, legal experts, law clerks, and drafters who worked so hard to make this bill a reality. I can assure you that this bill was not drafted in a matter of minutes. This bill respects fans of hunting and sport shooting while having a real, positive impact on Canadians’ safety.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I have always been an independent person. I have always defended my ideas and worked for Canadians. I come from a family of hunters who lived in a small town north of Montreal and always enjoyed eating game throughout the year, but I also believe in gun control.

This bill isn’t dogmatic or ideological. In drafting it, I used facts, figures, and documented results of Canadian, American and British policies. I also established a starting point for any government or any non-government organization that wants to thumb its nose at the gun lobby, which is very active, but which, in my opinion, is not concerned with Canadians’ safety.

(On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned.)


  • Rob

    Thank you for the consistent updates.These very bills get passed when the public interest is not kept up to date on the status of where things are at.We all have busy lives,but the things that are important to us as individuals sometimes get lost in that lifestyle.People, pay attention to what matters to you,before those interest are taken away.

  • Steve

    This woman is a fucking imbecile. She must be on some very powerful drugs. If not, she should be.

    • Alfred

      Very difficult to argue with your comments. Microencephalia is a horrid thing especially in a lawmaker.

  • eric allaire

    This lunatic needs to step down and start dating someone who will make her happy…with a face like that I think she needs it!

  • Wade

    Correct me if I am wrong. The senate can read a bill as many times as they want. That won’t make it law. It has to start in the house of commons?

    • Brian

      The process to pass a bill is always the same no matter where it originates from. A bill can be proposed in either Chamber and become law. It just has to pass through both chambers with the same wording before it can receive royal assent.

      • Rick

        Hi…just noted that on the third paragraph it’s mentionned “bill C 223”
        (that second reading of C-223 has not been completed. A motion was ca)
        May need to be corrected.

        • Brian

          Thank you! The error has been corrected to S-223.

  • Terry

    She’s a daft dimwit who doesn’t have a clue about what she’s talkn about!! She’s talkin for a bunch of other dimwits with the same mentality.

  • Mark Sirois

    In no way will this bill help law abiding people , and criminals will still break laws regardless of C-223. Its like saying car registration will make roads and Hyways safer and impede drinking and driving , its all about trust , this elected official does not trust law abiding people . I read once she commented that she was uneasy walking through security entering the Parlement building , due to armed RCMP officers present with firearms, she dosn’t even trust the RCMP with firearms . Hon. Celine Hervieux-Payette has an unhealthy fear of inanimate objects , in this case firearms , based on these facts her bill should be dismissed . If the Government does not trust Law abiding people , you cant trust that Government , Firearms are a symbol of FREEDOM , lets keep Canada free , thanks.

    • Keith

      Well said!

  • bill

    what a wack job—she needs therapy –or shes missing hamburger in her head

  • Heywood Jablome

    How do these morons get promoted to positions such as the one she holds, clearly she doesn’t understand the issues and is promoting this as a panacea for her hoplophobic cheerleaders.

  • Calamity Marcy

    According to Lorne Gunter of the Edmonton Sun, she hits seventy-five on Friday, the mandatory Senate retirement age. Sez Mr. Gunter: “Let’s hope when the good senator packs up her office this week, she packs up this dangerous bill along with her paperweight and letter opener.” Good riddance.

    • Brian

      That is correct, the mandatory age of retirement for senators in Canada is 75 – and her 75th birthday is on Friday. That will be her last day. She might be around long enough to see this bill die in front of her.

  • John

    I don’t want to register my car, or firearms. No need to do either. This woman is completely out of touch with Canadians and this should be considered treason in my book. I don’t know whether to laugh or be worried about this bill.

  • John

    I forgot to mention, this is the same senator who wanted to disarm all the police and guards on parliament hill because the guns made her feel uncomfortable.

  • Darcy Wheeler

    the people of Canada are having their rights taken away day by day, inch by inch. Shooting typically is similar minded people gathering and enjoying a similar activity is a safe and controlled matter.

  • Frank

    Still makes me wonder why we have people who have very little knowledge of firearms trying to ram down our throats new laws when they have no idea of what they are talking about. Very sad state of affairs when they can babble on and on and spout trumped up figures and make some of the patrons believe they are right. Am 62 years old and have hunted with legal firearms all my like and some of them are what is called military issue or black rifles. Have used them for many years and really like having something I can trust to do what it is intended for. That is sport hunting and one shot one kill something I try to do every shot. It is not the type of firearm they have to worry about it is the one behind it. Have never had an accident and never done any hunting illegally. Why should we be punished for something that someone with mental health issues has done or might do. better quit selling vehicles because they cause more deaths every year than firearms.

  • Jeff

    sppp..spppp.. sppp.. spit it out partner. Holy the stupid geezer can barely speak. After listening to her I understanding how she even came up with such an idiotic bill.

    • Brian

      That’s the translator you’re listening to, not the senator. The translator is doing everything live and translations can often be difficult when the person being translated is still speaking.

  • Travis Kay

    This bill is completely asinine and was drafted over years by various parties with an agenda, and without gun owner input. I’m not please by this flagrant abuse of government resources and malicious intent towards me and my fellow gun owners. Posted on behalf of another source:

    “Dear XXXX,

    Thank you for your email.

    S-223 was entirely created by Senator Hervieux-Payette’s office with the support of many lawyers, legists, other legal professionals from Parliament as well as public safety experts. We discussed with RCMP officials as well as many other professionals involved within the Canadian Firearms Program.

    Should you have any other questions, please let me know.

    Note that our office will definitely be closing this Thursday.

    Warmest regards,

    Special Assistant “

  • JohnC

    The tone of the previous comments, while sincere and from the heart, in my humble opinion will not assist in defeating Bill S-223 -(kind of an ironic number isn’t it). we have to be aware of several crucial facts:

    1. Last fall the Canadian tribe spoke and like it or not, Canada now has an elected prince for the next 5 years who can completely ignore any opposing viewpoints in the pursuit of his ideological agenda. While this may well prove to be another frozen snake story, in the meantime things will get interesting in the Chinese sense.

    2. As Lorne Gunter wrote a day or two ago, this is more of a trial balloon by the
    Trudeau government. S-223 shows evidence that there are a lot of Ottawa civil service lawyers who have an emotional and time investment in this bill, and calling their work stupid will not help gun owners’ cause at all. These worthies live in an Ottawa bubble where nothing is impossible or insane (as long as the process is followed, interdepartmental consensus is achieved, both official language groups are represented and minorities du jour are consulted), and have all the power Canada’s professional victim lobby has the ear of the government, whereas gun owners are perceived as old white guys who tend to vote conservative definitely do not. We irritate them at our peril.

    3. In a constitutional monarchy all power flows down from the crown and the police are there to enforce the law, as expressed in the RCMP’s motto, effectively making Canada a police state. As a previous pro gun spokesman said- possibly Dave Tomlinson, but I stand to be corrected – a state where the slaves get to choose their master every few years is not a free democracy. Private firearms ownership terrifies the ruling elites and S-223 fits right into this mentality. Plusit would creates lots of nice low risk government jobs and more money for their unions.

    4. The Australians and Brits undoubtedly thought and said their gun legislation was stupid. Ask them how that worked for them.

    My own suggestion, and only hope in the short to medium term is to adopt the NRA approach and set up our own ILA and work with the courts.

    • Brian

      I would not take Lorne Gunter’s word as gospel – this bill has been the pet project of Senator Hervieux-Payette for quite some time and was even originally proposed (and defeated) before the election took place. I would also like to point out that since Trudeau removed all the liberal senators from his caucus the two parties (LPC and liberal senators) are not playing nice with one another.

      In short, I highly doubt this is a trial by the Trudeau government. This is just one senator’s ignorant position on the subject. Hanlon’s Razor is at play here (never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity).

  • Alfred

    Having listened to a fair bit of a rambling, disjointed speech, my question is whether I am listening to drooling, drivelling idiocy or senility. Her non sequiturs and leaps of logic are quite astounding.

  • Paul

    So, when someone chooses to drive into a group of people with their car or drives home drunk speeding their car through traffic. Do we ban trucks? Most cities have buses and trains, you don’t really need a vehicle. Since sports cars are caught speeding and hit pedestrians, should we not ban sports cars. No one needs a sports car! Trucks should also be banned unless working on a farm or providing a reason for having a truck, such as hauling or working in rough terrain.
    The people who table these types of bills talk out of their ass for the most part. Few actually have knowledge of what it takes to be a legal firearms owner in Canada.
    The funny thing is, crazies and gangs will always find firearms, knives, rocks or bows and arrows to do their messed up work.
    I hope we start hearing some pop sounds soon, of politicians pulling thier heads out of thier asses.

  • terry

    thank god that she will be gone before destroying something that she knows nothing about

  • Richard


    Hi! Everyone,

    Gosh! a lot of great comments. The public personal assaults don’t ad to our group ‘credibility’ though I agree with most of them but we need to use that emotion to drive our combined resistance to such insane ideas from individuals who have the ‘power’ . How she got it, I don’t know though. ‘Frank’s’ comments are excellent.
    We must unite now not after any of this anti-gun legislation is passed. Thanks! for all the updates. Every gun owner needs to join all our Canadian Gun Associations and let their local MP’s know their positions on gun laws and ownership. This is a scary time.
    Kind Regards,
    Richard – Toronto

  • lee costerd

    criminals don’t register firearms and don’t provide background checks.Registering firearms does not prevent crime.Just another cash grab and aggravation for lawful gunowners to contend with.I am sure there is more important issues for government to be concerned with than this useless BILL.

  • Gary

    Car kill more than guns .

  • Gary

    Cars kill more a lot more than guns .killing by car is old news. 1000s killed by car not in news
    One by gun big news. Selling news is ????

  • Terry

    This is not the second reading, both party’s have to speak to the bill before it can proceed to second reading. The CPC don’t even have a date to speak to the bill

    • Brian

      Yes it is – it is the start of second reading for S-223. The remainder of debate has been adjourned for when Senate next sits (which happens to be today and you can listen in yourself in an hour via SenVU). Second reading takes longer than one day. Additionally, the CPC won’t be debating the bill because this bill is not in the House of Commons. It is a Senate bill being debated in the Senate by senators, not MPs.

  • Adam Kelly

    She says semi auto rifles are known as shot guns???? are you insane???? a semi auto rifle is a semi auto rifle, not a shotgun ,,,all theyre doing is taking the guns that scare them. Completely ridiculous. The m305 is an excellent hunting rifle, so is the sks for dirty rugged places you dont wanna take your expensive bolt gun. just a reminder these people are taking some guns that fought for your freedom….you think no canadian ever picked up a garand or m1 carbine in battle???? bull

  • Robert

    I am so sick and tired of being lumped into the same category as insane criminals and being forced to limit my enjoyment of a sport I love because ignorant politicians who don’give a damn, won’t address the real problems. Mass killings are not caused by the average gun owner. Stop blaming us for thsese tragic events! Everything a mass killer does is already illegal! Why do the law enforcement people and politicians need more laws? They need to get off their asses and eforce what we already have!.

  • Brian

    “Nobody is opposed to registering their car for … so I think we should do the same thing for firearms”. I would agree if we used our firearms in a similar manner – carried openly on the streets of Canada’s towns and cities, and used in places where the public is as close to the shooter as cars are to each other and so potentially dangerous, so that the public and law enforcement would need to readily identify the licensed object and so its owner in the event of its misuse. Her nonsense is yet another specious argument from an anti-gun nut.

  • Brent Swain

    Since when does registering your car require you to give up your constitutional right to be presumed innocent, to freedom of association, to life liberty and security of the person , your mobility rights in remote areas, your right to persue a livelihood, your right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, your right to remain silent , your right against self incrimination, all of which the registration of a firearm required. The list goes on.
    Copy these points and hand them out to naive urbanites.
    Their urban naivety reminds me of the lady being interviewed on CBC radio ,who said ” We don’t need farms anymore, the supermarkets do a pretty good job of feeding us.”
    I have heard that, when turkeys go wild, their intelligence levels rise dramatically. They quickly evolve from being some of the stupidest birds, to some of the smartest. Seems humans do the same, when they move from urban to rural environments.

  • mike

    The only way we are ever going to get the ignorant people in government to stop this kind of BS is to make it mandatory for every Canadian to do a 2 year stint in the military, specializing in hand to hand combat and weapons training. After each person has served their 2 yrs the rifle and hand gun they were given are theirs to keep in case of emergency or in case they are called back into the military. Every 6 months to a year every person has to re qualify their marksman status to keep their firearms in their possession. All firearms training each person does on their own at a range will be free, including the ammunition the person uses. After a couple of generations, every man and women in Canada would be trained in the safe use of firearms. Including every man and women in the government. Then lets see how much bickering and all out lies are told by government officials to further their own agendas.

  • Tanner

    The worst part, is that tax payer money paid these people to write this nonsense. This is one of the worst bills I’ve ever come across. No wonder the West is constantly talking about separation. Who would want to be a part of this waste of time/money/idiocy?

  • Bob D

    This is a very dangerous bill created by a woman totally ignorant of firearms. There needs to be a connection made to her regarding the actual number of weapons in law abiding Canadians hands and how little crime is committed by them. Disarming law abiding citizens is not going to make the country safer. Britain has the highest violent crime per capita in the EU. Most violent crime is not with a gun, even in the US.
    A friend says to me at least there is no possibility of a mass murder in the UK, but totally dismisses 10’s of thousands of traumatized people who suffered at the hands of a violent criminal. Fifty dead vs thousands traumatized, it’s irrational.
    There is absolutely no need to limit gun ownership to law abiding Canadians, they are not the problem or are they criminals but are being treated as such.

  • Tony

    I hope the conservative senators relize that Canadians are still watching and another election will come . Even though they had a couple of bad apples in there party doesn’t mean they are all guilty something like responsible gun owners . we are not guilty and shouldn’t be punished with ideas such as this bill and all its rediculous ideas . You have the chance to squash this bad apple senator and ideas . Also a chance to show that senators really understand Canada and all it stands for .[freedom not a dictator state ]. All the best .

  • Steve

    I am totally in agreement with MIKE above; just like Switzerland – no gun crimes there…..
    April 20, 2016
    The only way we are ever going to get the ignorant people in government to stop this kind of BS is to make it mandatory for every Canadian to do a 2 year stint in the military, specializing in hand to hand combat and weapons training. After each person has served their 2 yrs the rifle and hand gun they were given are theirs to keep in case of emergency or in case they are called back into the military. Every 6 months to a year every person has to re qualify their marksman status to keep their firearms in their possession. All firearms training each person does on their own at a range will be free, including the ammunition the person uses. After a couple of generations, every man and women in Canada would be trained in the safe use of firearms. Including every man and women in the government. Then lets see how much bickering and all out lies are told by government officials to further their own agendas.

  • Phil

    Wow…. I have been wrong all these years I don’t own a semi automatic rifle…I actually own a 30.06 shotgun…… She must have gotten her hands on that soon to be legal pot….

  • Gib Glofcheskie

    The lady is missing the reality . It’s not about gun control its about taxing the honest people who hunt and fish . Tax the criminals , they,re the ones who cost us , let them pay for what they have done , no free room and board .

  • Peper

    She must be out of her bloody mind. They just wasted $3.2 + billion dollars of taxpayers money on gun registry that did not work. Why would this registry work? Crminals won’t register their firearms. They will just go and steal someone elses gun and still commit the same crime. Lets invest our tax taxpayers money where it makes a difference in our lifes. Proper policing, proper justice system that supports the police, that gives them the proper tools, training and authority. Lets stop waisting our taxpayers money on narrow minded , uneducated politicians that waste our money and hinder this great country of becoming the best country in the world. I am speechless that we even spend one minute on giving this stupid proposal any consideration.

  • Daniel R

    RE: bill S223
    I have just been listening to the second reading speech by Senator Hervieux-Payette translator, on her bill S-223.
    I am ashamed that this person has attained to be a Senator with her lack of education and ignorance and slanted views.
    I am appalled listening from 11 minutes 40 seconds into her reading.
    Such ignorance.
    Focus on the criminal element ………..not on us law abiding sportsmen.
    Hoping that solid reason and wisdom will prevail.

  • JP

    Here’s some intersting stats I dug up. I’m sure the idiots in Ottawa are more than familiar with this information yet they still insist on trying to ram more idiotic gun control crap down our throats.

    According to the Cancer Society of Canada, approximately 37,000 peple die form cigarette smoking related causes each year in our country.

    In 2010, 2,227 people died in vehicle accidents. There were 170,629 injuries as the result of vehicle accidents.

    The average gun related deaths in various years in Canada is 1.97 per 100,000 people. This includes murders, suicides, justifiable homicides like police shootings and gun related accidents. Using the population for Canada in 2015 that works out to about 704 gun related deaths in that year.

    So this should show the morons in Ottawa exactly what their priorities to protect all Canadians must be:

    1) Illegalize tobacco in Canada and initiate a class action lawsuit against First Nations for introducing us to this very dangerous and addictive substance.

    2) Govern all vehicles to a safe speed of about 20 km per hour … 25 on highways.

    3) Make firearms safety training a mandatory course in all high schools and leave our guns and legal gun enthusiasts alone.

    3) b. Institute extremely harsh penalties for anyone found guilty of commiting a crime while using a firearm.

    Please feel free to check my stats and let me know of any inaccuracies. Also, share this anywhere you like … or just ignore it and let the idiots in government waste more of our tax dollars on yet another gun control flop.

  • Kevin W

    I think that you must have a “REASON “to own firearms other than “just because we can”.Hunters are a given.They have a hunting license. Shooting sports and collectors should also have a type of permit to complement their firearms license. Using events from the past to justify the future is pointless….we still have wars.Common sense is “SECURITY”.Not invoking unrealistic ideals.

    • Brian

      Why should there be additional permits on top of a permit that already says one can own a firearm? What purpose would that serve?

    • Adam

      If you dont like guns dont own them,,,,Dont tell people they should have a reason to, I know people that own boats they dont use, maybe tell them they might plow into some swimmers one day…..because this bill is all about disarming the public because THEY DONT TRUST THEM.

  • mike

    can we pleases stop calling them weapons ! they are firearms !

    • Brian

      By definition firearms are weapons.

      • mike

        by definition is a baseball bat a weapon?

      • David

        Brian, I would have to ask, by whose definition? With all due respect, the word weapon indicates item is used for killing human life. Kitchen knife, rock, broom handle. even fire arms, all of these can be considered weapons when used for that purpose. A sporting fire arm or long rifle or handgun for that matter are only weapons when used for that purpose of killing human life. Military fire arms are considered weapons as they are designed to be used for killing human life. So it would follow then that sporting firearms that are designed to be used for hunting, predation control, and/or target shooting are by definition firearms not weapons per se.

        Does that sound fair and reasonable?

        • Brian

          The definition in the Criminal Code of Canada and, by extension, the Firearms Act – which, when discussing Canadian firearms law and politics, is the only one that truly matters.

          • David

            Thought that may have been what you ment when you posted earlier in retrospect. Regardless, I am really dismayed with the government’s agenda with regard to lawful firearm ownership in this “great” country of ours.

            I have to ask; where is the respite from this bureaucratic bungling bubble in Ottawa? pardon the pun

  • mike

    they are only weapons when used against another human!

  • Vince

    This is not a nice thing to say, but I am sick of being pushed around, and bullied by these feckin incompetent CUNTS, when I haven’t, and excepting self defence when no other reasonable option exists, won’t do anything to harm another person… Methinks that confiscation is very soon the next step…

  • Den

    ZERO compliance. ZERO !!!!

  • jay
    • Gary Risdon

      Is she going to pay for it. Out of her own bank

  • Joe Blow

    I drive an automatic transmission vehicle, which we all have been used to run people over. Let’s ban the automatic transmissions in favor of manual. We all know that manual transmissions can’t be used to automatically run people over.

  • Thom

    ONCE AGAIN, The liberals punish the people who obey the law, and the criminals who break it do as they please.

  • Larry

    I am dismayed that someone supposedly smart enough to be involved in the Senate of Canada would attempt to do what the mayor of Chicago has done which resulted in the killing of more people in that city so far this year than ever before. Gun control such as this will never result in a good result as it only opens the field for criminals, who do not follow gun laws no matter where they are, to kill whomever they choose with no thought of retaliation nor of the victim being able to protect him/herself. The police can no longer provide protection effectively and will tell the individual that although they would never admit that in public. This has gone beyond the sport of hunting … this is clearly the result of careful planning and lobbying to subject the citizens of Canada to a government afraid of its citizens, to criminal activity against those citizens by both the criminal element as well as the government authorities such as has never been seen before, and to utter subjugation by those willing to use force to advance their own agenda. I enjoy hunting and have been taught to use and respect a gun appropriately. Making me a criminal for that reason shows the level of foolishness supported by the bleeding hearts that fill our government posts and their knee-jerk attempts to fix life to a mental utopia that cannot be attained in the human realm. Those people who support such legislation (such as Trudeau) cannot comprehend that people kill people and that changing the lifestyle of people is what causes them to cross that line. They will continue to do that even after guns are gone. Why is it so hard for supposedly intelligent people to see this? If she removes gnus, then she should lose her knives (kitchen, etc), hammers, and any other tool that has been used to kill a person seeing as she thinks only the tools kill people. Intelligence is overrated.

  • Jason

    Any updates on whether this bill is dead on the floor. Pun intended.

    • Brian

      S-223 has not resumed debate since it began Second Reading on April 19. I am unsure if another Senator has sponsored the bill since Hervieux-Payette retired on April 21, but thus far it appears that none have – which means this bill is already dead in the water.

  • Dave

    This is the scariest piece of legislation I have ever seen.
    This is an Orwelian intrusion into the property rights of Canadians.
    The “gun grab”, confiscation of property without compensation is upon us cloaked under the all encompassing veil of “public safety”.
    Imagine the cost and inconvenience to owners of “inscribed firearms”. The ministers intent is obvious.
    We as free Canadians are under attack.
    Good luck to us all 🙁

  • Rob

    These senators should be elected into their positions rather than appointed. Payette has been sitting comfortably for way to long. Perhaps we should take that fight to them. It may be a ill fated last hurrah for a antigun advocate just to stir everyone up on her way out. Still they should be accountable and they aren’t.

  • Kevin

    Hello Brian . It is now July 19 2016. What is the current status of s223. This insanity keeps me awake some nights. Where are we at now with this and what’s next and when? Thank you for your work on this matter.

    • Brian

      Hi Kevin. Fortunately there has been no progress on S-223. It was last addressed almost a month ago, and even then the Senator who was to read it again chose to adjourn debate before it started. I would not be hasty and say that it is, without a doubt, dead as of yet but the odds are in our favour that it will not be further pursued. If anything changes you can bet that I’ll be letting everyone know.

  • Manuel

    Troubling news for firearm owners. Curious the Senators (which are appointees not elected officials) are proposing such intrusive laws. Thank you for the information.

  • Pingback: Bill S-223 dropped from Order Papers, officially dead()

  • 007cohiba

    Liverals were not elected to impose individual views as LAW for the rest of DEMOCRATIC Canadian population. This woman’s jargon regardless of the fact that she is a senator should be kept in a Starbucks coffee house setting not on the floor of the HOUSE at parliament.