44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 21, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the government defending its use of something that Liberals previously said was an absolute affront to democracy: time allocation. It is incumbent upon us to talk about the fact that the bill has been debated for three hours and 20-odd minutes. This is not a bill that has been “filibustered”; this is a bill that has barely received scrutiny. There are valid questions that have been raised.
I believe that it is really important to point out right now, especially for the record, that the concerns that are being heard in my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and many ridings across the prairies are very different from the concerns that are being heard elsewhere. I think that this government would be very well suited not to move time allocation on this and instead hear directly from these witnesses. I would urge the minister to come to the prairies. He can come to my riding and talk to people who have serious concerns about the bill and what it would mean for their day-to-day living. Will he come to my riding to talk to the gun owners?
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would be happy to accept my hon. colleague's invitation, and I thank her for it. Also, I am pleased to alert her to the fact that I have previously visited the ridings of some of her colleagues in opposition, including Lethbridge, Alberta, where I had the chance to interact with law-abiding gun owners, for whom we have a tremendous amount of respect.
I would point out that we are not stopping the debate on this bill. All of the urging that my colleague has impressed upon me and the government to hear from witnesses and to continue with debate is an effort that will continue at committee. We have to move on with the bill, because this is an urgent issue, and we look forward to making sure that we can study this bill and ultimately pass it to better protect Canadians.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what needs to be acknowledged this morning is that this government refuses to accept its status as a minority government, and has never accepted it, since 2019. Its minority status means that it has to work with the opposition parties. It refused to do so from the beginning, so the government called an election in the middle of a pandemic to try to win a majority. When that did not work, the government found a third party to be its puppet, and now it can do whatever it wants. Then it complains that the opposition is trying to obstruct proceedings in order to buy time. Of course, the government should not expect collaboration when it refuses to respect its collaborators.
We were told yesterday that we would be sitting until midnight tonight. No one knows who was consulted. The government House leader is not communicating with the House leaders of the other parties. If that is not contempt, I do not know what is. I urge the government to open its eyes and, more importantly, its ears and work with the opposition parties so we can stop debating about not debating. This is ridiculous.
196 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague's role and the opposition's role. That is exactly why we came up with concrete and practical solutions for Canadians during the pandemic and obtained a consensus in the House. This was done very publicly and I am very proud of the result.
At the same time, with respect to gun violence, I am working with my Quebec counterparts, as I have mentioned several times. We must act. We will continue to debate this bill in committee with all members, including the Bloc members.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just want to say that this is getting disturbing. I hear the Conservatives time and again spending all the time of the House trying to tear this place down, instead of fighting for people in their ridings.
People are struggling right now. I say that with great frustration, because just in May there were three women murdered in Winnipeg—
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 11:25:05 a.m.
- Watch
I have a point of order from the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at page 662 of Bosc and Gagnon, it states:
The intent of the question-and-answer period after closure motion has been moved is to promote ministerial accountability, and it provides an opportunity for the government to justify its use of this measure.
This is not an opportunity for the fourth party in this place to hold the opposition to account.
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 11:25:32 a.m.
- Watch
I take the hon. member's comments. As he knows, I have been here for almost 14 years. Even when it was a Conservative government, the same line of questioning was actually happening. We have to have debate, and the debate is to hear both sides.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will repeat that it is disturbing to listen to the Conservative Party taking people down instead of fighting for people in their ridings in question period after question period, and stalling things at committees.
It is concerning to me because, in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, there were three women murdered in the month of May. One other woman was hit and left to perish. These are serious issues that we are dealing with. If the Conservative Party and people in the House are so concerned about having time for debate, then maybe they should stop playing procedural games. I have concerns about debate, so I am making sure that we have proper time for debate.
I want to ask the minister this. How is he going to ensure accountability at committee to make sure that due process is followed and make sure that we can come up with something that truly helps individuals in Canada?
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for her advocacy, and express my condolences and support to my hon. colleague's community for the recent tragic losses owing to gun violence. That is precisely why we have to continue to be motivated to have debate and—
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I hope if you seek it you would receive unanimous consent for the extension of the question-and-answer period by 15 minutes. I think there is incredibly valuable discussion that is yet to be had on this particular subject.
I would ask for unanimous consent to extend this period by what I think is a very reasonable 15 minutes.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 11:27:44 a.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
An hon. member: Nay.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that we will continue to have at least five more hours of debate on Bill C-21. Then it will go to committee, where I know there will be a very extensive, thorough and comprehensive study of Bill C-21. This is a good bill. It has the broad support of Canadians across a wide array of constituencies.
We embrace the idea of debating, and passing, this bill so we can better protect communities from the scourge of gun violence.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 11:28:25 a.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 11:29:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 11:29:30 a.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying I will be sharing my time with the always incisive member for Rivière-du-Nord.
Some debates are complex, difficult and delicate. They elicit strong reactions, and even divide us and help create rifts in our society. The debate on Bill C-21 is a striking example.
I remember that this is the first file I commented on publicly after I was elected for the first time in fall 2019, and here we are at the end of the session in my second term, in June 2022, and we are still talking about it.
I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois will still be voting in favour of Bill C-21 at second reading, but we believe that the bill should be improved in committee. My colleagues can rest assured that the Bloc will try to be as constructive as possible, but our now-famous dynamic duo, namely the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord and the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, could explain it better than I can, since they have asked the Minister of Public Safety many questions on the issue. I will begin my speech by addressing certain aspects of Bill C-21, then certain points more specifically related to femicide and, lastly, other points focusing on domestic violence.
First, given the numerous events in the news in Montreal lately, Bill C-21 is a step in the right direction, but it will have little effect in the short term and change practically nothing in the streets of Montreal. The most important new feature in this bill is a complete freeze on the acquisition, sale and transfer of handguns for private individuals. Legal handguns will therefore disappear on the death of the last owner, since it will be impossible to bequeath or transfer the guns to others.
However, the bill includes exceptions for people who need a handgun to perform their duties, such as bodyguards with a licence to carry, authorized companies, for filming purposes for example, and high-level sport shooters. The government will define by regulation what is a “sport shooter”.
Those who already own a handgun will still be able to use it legally, but they will have to make sure to always renew their licence before the deadline or lose this privilege. The bill freezes the acquisition of legal handguns, but we will have to wait many years before all of the guns are gone, through attrition. In contrast, the number of illegal guns will continue to grow.
The federal government estimates that there are more than one million legal handguns in Canada and that more than 55,000 are acquired legally every year. The federal freeze would therefore prevent 55,000 handguns from being added to the existing number, but it does nothing about the millions of guns already in circulation. The Bloc Québécois suggests adding handguns to the buyback program in order to allow owners to sell them to the government if they so wish. In short, we are proposing an optional buyback program.
However, one of the problems is that, according to Montreal's police force, the SPVM, 95% of the handguns used to commit violent crimes are purchased on the black market. Legal guns are sometimes used, as in the case of the Quebec City mosque shooting, and it is precisely to avoid such mass shootings that the Bloc Québécois supports survivor groups in their demands to ban these guns altogether.
Bill C‑21 does nothing about assault weapons either, even though manufacturers are custom designing many new models to get around the May 1, 2020, regulations. The Bloc suggests adding as clear a definition as possible of the term “prohibited assault weapon”, so that they can all be banned in one fell swoop, rather than on a model-by-model basis with taxpayers paying for them to be bought back. The government wants to add to the list of prohibited weapons, but manufacturers are quick to adapt.
Also, Bill C‑21 will have no real impact on organized crime groups, which will continue to import weapons illegally and shoot people down in our streets. The Bloc Québécois has tabled Bill C-279 to create a list of criminal organizations, similar to the list of terrorist entities, in order to crack down on criminal groups that are currently displaying their gang symbols with total impunity while innocent people are dying in our streets. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord will discuss this bill in more detail, since he is the sponsor.
The most important thing for getting to the heart of the problem is reducing the number of guns available. Bill C‑21 increases prison sentences for arms traffickers, from 10 years to 14, and makes it an offence to alter cartridge magazines. It was already illegal to possess cartridge magazines that exceed the lawful capacity, but the government is now making altering cartridge magazines a crime.
Second, as the Bloc Québécois critic for status of women, I am regularly asked about this type of bill. What is interesting in this case is that Bill C‑21 incorporates the red- and yellow-flag system from the former Bill C-21. With the red-flag provisions, the Criminal Code will allow any individual to ask a judge to issue an order to immediately confiscate firearms belonging to a person who could be a danger to themselves or others, and even to confiscate weapons belonging to a person who might make them available to a person who poses a risk. The order would be valid for 30 days, and judges could take measures to protect the identity of the complainant.
The yellow-flag provisions would allow chief firearms officers to temporarily suspend a person's firearms licence if they have information that casts doubt on the person's eligibility for the licence. This suspension would prevent the person from acquiring new firearms, but it would not allow for the firearms they currently own to be seized. However, the person would not be allowed to use those firearms, for example at a firing range.
A new measure in this version of Bill C-21 is the immediate revocation of the firearms licence of any individual who becomes subject to a protection order or who has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking. This measure has been lauded by many anti-femicide groups, like PolyRemembers. There are several such groups, far too many, in fact.
This includes restraining orders and peace bonds, but also, and this is interesting, orders concerning domestic violence and stalking, including physical, emotional, financial, sexual and any other form of violence or stalking. A person who was subject to a protection order in the past would automatically be ineligible for a firearms licence.
However, there is another problem in relation to gun smuggling. The bill contains only a few measures and, I will say it again, it does not mention a buyback program for assault weapons or even the addition of a prohibited assault weapons category to the Criminal Code, two things that are absolutely necessary.
It is important to point out that 10- and 12-gauge hunting rifles are not affected by the ban. The gun lobby tried to sow doubt with a creative definition of a rifle's bore, which is now limited to under 20 millimetres. The bill therefore does not affect hunters. I know that many hunting groups are concerned about the new measures, but we need to reassure them that assault weapons are not designed for the type of hunting they do.
Getting back to assault weapons, the government as already planning to establish a buyback program through a bill in order to compensate owners of newly prohibited weapons, but it did not do so in the last legislature. If the government persists in classifying guns on a case-by-case basis, the number of models of assault weapons on the market will continue to rise. That is why the Bloc Québécois suggests adding a definition of “prohibited assault weapon” to the Criminal Code so that we can ban them all at once.
The Liberals keep repeating that they have banned assault weapons when there is nothing preventing an individual from buying an assault weapon right now or going on a killing spree if they already have one, since a number of models remain legal. Having already come out against this in Bill C‑ 5, the Liberals are also sending mixed messages in removing mandatory minimum sentences for certain gun crimes.
Third, I know that this bill will not stop all cases of femicide, but it is significant as part of a continuum of measures to address violence. There is still much work to be done, for example in areas such as electronic bracelets and health transfers, to provide support to groups that work with victims and survivors.
On Friday, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled its report on intimate partner and family violence in Canada, and that is essentially the message I wanted to convey in my supplementary report. I hope it will be taken seriously. We will also need to work on changing mindsets that trivialize violence and try to counter hate speech, particularly online.
To talk a little bit about the bill, it relates to cases of violence, and we mentioned electronic monitoring devices. The bill would provide for two criminal offences that would qualify for electronic monitoring, including the authorized possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm or ammunition. That is a good thing. Something worthwhile came out of the work that we did at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
In closing, we are not the only ones who are saying that this bill does not go far enough or that it needs more work. The mayor of Montreal herself said that this bill does not go far enough. She said, and I quote:
This is an important and decisive measure that sends the message that we need to get the gun situation under control. The SPVM is making every effort to prevent gun crime in Montreal, but it is going to be very difficult for police forces across the country to do that as long as guns can continue circulating and can easily be obtained and resold.
There is still work to be done, and we must do it. We owe it to the victims. Enough with the partisanship. Let us work together constructively to move forward on this important issue. We cannot stand idly by while gunshots are being fired in our cities, on our streets and in front of schools and day cares. Let us take action to put an end to gun culture.
1845 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Bloc members are going to be voting in favour of the legislation, yet I am a bit surprised about the most recent vote. Surely to goodness they recognize that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support the legislation and that it is the Conservatives' intent to see the bill never go to committee, yet the Bloc seems quite content to allow the Conservative Party to filibuster it at second reading. I was surprised that the Bloc is not recognizing the value of having time allocations, given the track record of the Conservative Party.
To that end, my question to the member is this: To what degree does the Bloc party want to see this legislation ultimately passed? She made reference to the fact that it is an important issue, which we know it is. If it goes to committee, she indicated there could be some possible amendments. Would she like to see the legislation ultimately passed before the end of this year?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.
I believe I mentioned this in my speech, but we do want to work on the bill. We do want to study it in committee. That is not the issue. The previous vote was to condemn an affront to democracy.
Right now, the Liberals are constantly imposing closure. They are ultimately the only ones responsible for their legislative agenda, and they have done nothing. They are also responsible for the Conservatives' current filibustering. These two parties have led us to a dead end.
That is what we were condemning in the previous vote, not Bill C-21. Frankly, this government offends against democracy. It is acting like a majority government when it is in fact a minority government. That is the mandate it was given by voters. That offends me.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
