Stop the motion on Bill C-21 regulations: Freezing Handgun Transfer

[relayer1989]

Hmm. I didn't hear that. Where does he say that it is specific to the freezing handgun part of C-21, and that it's just a regulation they are dealing with. All I heard was that the committee will not take witnesses or testimony. I saw the gunblog.ca explanation of this, but it's not entirely clear to me, and now I am not sure any more.

Gah.

The regulations were not published in the gazette but they were leaked and they are trying pass this before the bill.

Michael Loberg posted the regulations to CCFR Facebook group. Unfortunately it's the only link I have to it at this time:
https://m.facebook.com/groups/CCFR.C...6165739840804/

[Taffer]

You can see it at the SECU meeting recording here: https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en...=20&viewMode=3

Skip to timestamp 11:23:00 for the attempted motion

I just want to point people back at this, and people should watch it.

Please share.

[CTomz]

Disgusting display of pandering, misinformation, and arrogance from the left as usual.

[SouthSurrey45]

Disgusting display of pandering, misinformation, and arrogance from the left as usual.

I’m not shocked at all it was a Vancouver lib trying to get this going either

[CTomz]

I’m not shocked at all it was a Vancouver lib trying to get this going either

Of course not - anything to appeal to low-information voters who lack self-determination, the Vancouver special! I need to get out of this country....

[tmfknives]

This whole B***sh*t announcement was no coincidence. The Texas shooting was the (almost) perfect opportunity for the Liberals to stoke the fire in the Conservative leadership race. The Liberals want to "scare" the gun-owning (mostly conservative-voting) public into the camp of the most conservative of the conservative candidates. They believe the fear of losing our hobby would make us vote for Polievre as leader of the conservative party. I have nothing against the man, but I don't think he could get elected across the country by all segments of the population - NDP-ers and Liberals would not vote for him, and that's just what the Liberals want! They don't want to have to fight an election against a half-liberal like Charest or Brown because they would probably lose! Trudeau is hated even by the liberal voters, so Charest looks awefully good right now. BTW - I don't think Trudeau will be running again in the next election. He will be "retired" (get the boot) because he has become too much of a liability. Afterall, it's the party that's in power and controls the country, not the politicians...
That's just my opinion. Keep up the good fight!

[9mmGunGuy]

... against a liberal like Charest or Brown because they could not lose!

Fixed it for you. Just my opinion.

[nealio]

I just want to point people back at this, and people should watch it.

Please share.

It was nice to hear the very strong "no" on unanimous consent. Next meeting link here https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/Meetings
Will be watching that one...

[CaribooBC]

It was nice to hear the very strong "no" on unanimous consent. Next meeting link here https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/Meetings
Will be watching that one...

I just clicked on your link. The next meeting is an "In Camera" meeting, ie: closed to the public. You can see the small lock symbol beside the date, that designates an "In Camera" meeting. We will not be able to watch it.

[nealio]

I just clicked on your link. The next meeting is an "In Camera" meeting, ie: closed to the public. You can see the small lock symbol beside the date, that designates an "In Camera" meeting. We will not be able to watch it.

So is there any chance to get our Conservative members to pass a motion to defer the vote until the Canadian public can view the proceedings?