44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2023 10:00AM
- May/9/23 6:17:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think you would agree with me it is my right as a member of Parliament to raise a point of order, bring it to the Speaker's attention when I think it is appropriate, and I will not be shut down—
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 6:17:29 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Mirabel was not referring to rising on points of order. I think the hon. member was referring to comments that were being made while other members were speaking.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Carleton has a history of supporting anti-choice legislation that impacts a woman's right to choose, including, now, his support of Bill C-311. He also has a history of backing up and holding up folks such as Jordan Peterson, who has spoken out aggressively against the trans community and its members' right to bodily autonomy. This is about bodily autonomy and the right to choose. It is very much a part of the debate.
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada opposes this bill, saying “The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada opposes this bill and urges MPs to oppose the bill as well...The bill is redundant.” It goes on to say that the anti-choice movement is using it as a vehicle to advance fetal rights, saying, “Several anti-choice groups have been promoting this Bill C-311 as a means to recognize two victims. They are looking for a route to establish fetal personhood in law, and if this bill passes, they would leverage the bill for that purpose”.
This is very much an anti-choice bill. This is not coming from me, although there have been points of order raised. I know what I am saying might be troubling, but I want to let people know that the NDP opposes Bill C-311. We are committed to fighting for the reproductive rights of all Canadians. We oppose, and I am proud that we oppose, anything that restricts these rights, and we support expanding access to abortion services, removing barriers and protecting the right of women and gender-diverse people to make decisions about their own bodies.
That is what this debate is about tonight. From my perspective, and we have certainly heard from several experts in the field, this bill is the latest attempt in a long line of attempts by anti-choice Conservative MPs to undermine Canadians' reproductive rights. I know not all Conservative MPs are anti-choice, and I urge them to vote against the bill. It is unfortunate the Leader of the Conservative Party is supporting anti-choice legislation.
We are opposing the bill, as it does not provide pregnant women with additional protection, but it does provide anti-choice MPs and organizations a new tool to promote the legal restrictions on abortion.
Let us look at what is happening south of us. I am worried that we will have, just like what is happening in the States, 10-year-old girls who were victims of sexual assault being forced to carry babies to term. Do we want a country that forces that kind of abuse on children? New Democrats are going to resist, vocally, any sort of attempt to limit abortion rights. We could ensure that a pregnant woman and others who experience gender-based violence are safe. That is not what this bill is about.
We could ensure that pregnant women are safe without undermining reproductive rights and the right to bodily autonomy for anybody, including the trans community. We know abortion rights are under attack. This is a real threat, even in this country. We must do more than oppose bad legislation. We already need to improve, for example, in real time, access to this right. There are places in Canada where people cannot access an abortion.
We have to ensure that we do not just recognize that human right, but that we ensure all women have access to the right. We know that Conservatives cannot be trusted on this issue. We know that. They have had several attempts to undermine women's and gender-diverse individuals' right to choose. We know that many Conservatives MPs have introduced and supported anti-choice bills that would undermine Canadians' right to access a safe abortion.
Quite frankly, the Liberals have talked a good game, but their record is deeply underwhelming. While they pay lip service to defending abortion rights, they still have not removed the charitable status from anti-choice crisis pregnancy centres, and they do not enforce the Canada Health Act when provinces fail to uphold the right to access abortions.
They need to take action, not words, to ensure that a woman's right to health care, is available. Abortions are health care. We are going to continue to hold the government to account.
I will continue to watch the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, who is actively supporting a bill that—
743 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 6:23:06 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock has the floor.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand today in support of Bill C-311, the violence against pregnant women act, because I thought that is what we would be debating tonight. However, what I have been listening to is far from that. The speakers have gone far afield in their discussion of a bill that is squarely before them.
I want to thank the member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing forward this important legislation. It is my honour to second it at this stage of debate. I will speak to this bill, not some other bill or bills, or a history of bills. We are talking about Bill C-311, which would amend the Criminal Code to specify that knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman and causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman would be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.
I support this bill because mothers who have faced and are facing violent assaults need to know that they are heard and that the pain and depression caused by harm to their babies are not left unseen by others. I have fought for women's rights all my career as a lawyer, especially during my career as a family lawyer, and now as a politician. This bill is about the rights of pregnant women, no more and no less.
I am the mother of four children who I have been fortunate to raise into adulthood, but I was pregnant five times. My last child, a boy named Mackenzie, or little Mack for short, never got the chance to know his family, work, speak, go to school, play with friends or grow up. His waiting family, which was me, his dad, his brother and three sisters, never got to meet him. We lost little Mack halfway through my pregnancy because of the negligence of an interning doctor who wrongly handled an amniocentesis procedure and suffocated him in utero.
At the time, his loss sent me into a deep situational depression for months. I was off work for the first time in my adult life, and I grieved his passing desperately. I still do many years later. Because of this tragic event in my own life, I know and understand how the deliberate act of a person who knows that someone is pregnant and does harm to them and their baby impacts a mother and her family.
It is well documented that pregnant women in Canada are easy targets for violent assaults, yet the consequences of these offences have not increased. Just this year, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned a seven-year sentence for an offender who stabbed the pregnant mother of his unborn child in the neck and left her for dead. The mother lived, but the baby did not. This violent attacker's sentence was upped to 15 years when an appeal judge pointed out that the initial sentence did not address the issue of domestic violence or that the victim was pregnant with his baby. A violent crime against a pregnant woman needs to be treated as the serious crime that it is. Right now, criminal sentences in Canada do not consider harm done to a pregnant woman when an assault is committed.
Nelson Mandela said, “Safety and security don't just happen. They are the result of collective consensus and public investment.” Violence against women, especially pregnant women, is not a private family issue. It is a public safety and security issue, and it needs the urgent attention of this House.
Among Canadian women who have reported being abused by an intimate partner during pregnancy, 40% said that the abuse began during pregnancy. In recent years, there have been more than 70 cases in which pregnant women have been murdered, and the effect of the death of the unborn child was not a factor at sentencing.
The story of Tashina General from Brantford is particularly disheartening. In 2008, a Brantford man strangled Tashina to death. She was his 21-year-old pregnant girlfriend. He then attempted to hide Tashina's body by burying her in a shallow grave. He committed this gruesome and horrific crime against Tashina, as the evidence came out, simply because he did not want to bear the responsibility of being a father, despite Tashina's choice to be a mother.
Only eight years later, this murderer was set free. Tashina's grandmother, Norma General, still wonders what her great-grandson would have looked like and what kind of personality he would have had. She never had the opportunity to hold her first great-grandchild because of the despicable actions of a misogynistic killer.
It is not only intimate partner violence to which pregnant women are vulnerable. Pregnant women are also the target of unprovoked attacks by strangers. Last year on Vancouver Island, a pregnant woman walking down the street with her four-year-old daughter had a brick thrown at her stomach in a random attack. The fact that the victim was pregnant was not seen as an aggravating factor. I will let that sink in.
In another case, a pregnant woman in Surrey was attacked at a bank. An unknown man approached her from behind and violently threw her to the ground. Women who are pregnant are vulnerable, and they should be treated as vulnerable when it comes to sentencing. Offenders will often cite an unplanned pregnancy or the stress caused by having to potentially financially support the baby as excuses for these crimes.
The uncaring government has turned its back on women who choose to have a child. Its members are blinded by differences with the member for Yorkton—Melville on other matters, and that is blinding them to this bill. A vote against this bill is a vote against choice and women, and it would be misogynistic. They say that they are for choice, but only if we agree with that choice, and that is no choice at all.
996 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be resuming, in the remaining time that the Liberals and the NDP have permitted me. Of course, they are silencing me in this debate in the House and they are going to be further silencing us in committee on Bill C-21, despite the millions of people whom this bill impacts.
I want to acknowledge that it has been a terrible year for police, to say the least. This comes during a violent crime wave across the country. We have seen a 32% increase in violent crime since the Liberals formed government about eight years ago. We are seeing the result of their soft-on-crime, catch-and-release policies that they work very closely on with the NDP. Those are coming home to roost, and people are being violently assaulted and murdered on public transit.
Our police officers, of course, are on the front lines, fighting these violent criminals. Often it is the same criminals every single weekend whom our brave, dedicated men and women in uniform are putting their lives at risk to deal with. They actually sometimes know these violent repeat offenders on a first-name basis.
I think it is important that we acknowledge, in the House, the failures of the policies of the current government, working with the NDP, and the consequences of that in real life.
Of course, there are multiple factors that contribute to violent crime, but we know, from police, that Bill C-75, which was a Liberal bill from a number of years ago, exacerbated the catch-and-release policies. This was evident on a Victoria police department news release that was talking about a vile rapist who committed 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon, rapes with a weapon. On the bottom of the press release, because the police wanted to ensure that the public knew that it was not their fault that this horrible, vile man was being released, they said that this person was being released because of Bill C-75, the Liberal bill from a number of years ago.
The Liberals just passed Bill C-5, which I alluded to yesterday, and I talked about the series of violent crimes that no longer will have mandatory prison time as a result of Bill C-5. Talking about rapists, one result of Bill C-5 is that a man in Quebec who violently raped a woman will get zero days in prison, and gets to serve his sentence, a conditional sentence for 20 months, from the comforts of his home.
These are real consequences. As I mentioned, I know that there are a multitude of factors in violent crime, but we are hearing directly from police that the Liberal bills have impacted these things.
It has been a very tough year for police, and Bill C-21 would do nothing to solve the violent crime problem in Canada, because, when it talks about firearms, it goes after law-abiding citizens, who, of course, by definition, are law-abiding. That is why they have the ability to own firearms, because they have been proven and vetted to be law-abiding. They are the only people who would be impacted by the firearm measures in this bill.
Meanwhile, while this is happening, with all of these resources and all of this time and all of these announcements from the Liberals, who are targeting law-abiding citizens, we have had many police officers, just in the past few months, who have been murdered.
I would like to name them today: Constable Andrew Hong, September 12, 2022, murdered by gunshot on the job; Constable Morgan Russell, October 12, 2022, gunshot; Constable Devon Northrup, October 12, 2022, gunshot; Constable Shaelyn Yang, October 18, 2022, stabbing; and Constable Greg Pierzchala, whom I talked about yesterday. He was murdered on December 27, 2022, by gunshot, by a man who was out on bail and had a lifetime prohibition against owning firearms and a very long rap sheet of violent crimes, yet was out on bail.
This is the state of public safety and crime under the Liberal government. Greg Pierzchala is dead because of our weak bail system. This is what we have heard from Toronto police, who deal with this on the front lines more than anybody else. There are more: Constable Travis Jordan, March 16, 2023; Constable Brett Ryan, March 16, 2023; Sergeant Maureen Breau, March 27, 2023; and Constable Harvinder Singh Dhami, April 10, 2023.
It has been a rough couple of years for police. The morale is very low. Recruitment numbers are very low, and, at the same time, Canada is dealing with 124,000 more violent crime incidents in 2021 than in 2015.
That is the record of this Liberal government. It does not like to acknowledge it. It does not like to talk about it. It likes to brush off responsibility and blame everybody else.
The fact is that, compared to 2015, there are 124,000 more violent crime incidents per year in Canada. Meanwhile, police morale is in crisis, recruitment and retention are in crisis, and police officers are being murdered every other week. However, we hear more announcements from the Minister of Public Safety about going after law-abiding citizens than about going after anybody else. I do not know how many times we have to say this. The Liberals are going after, and spending resources and precious time on, the wrong people, the most vetted people in the country, who, statistically, are one-third as likely to cause crimes as anybody else, than non-firearm owners. It is insane, if someone just looks at the raw data. These are heavily vetted, tested and trained Canadian citizens.
The Conservative Party firmly supports responsible gun ownership laws. We are talking about licensing, vetting and safe storage. These things are very important. Only responsible Canadians should ever come near a firearm. If there are any gaps in that, we are happy to have that discussion, but we have a very robust system in Canada.
We are seeing 124,000 additional violent crimes and hundreds of thousands of other violent crimes every year. They are going up every year as a result of the Liberal government's policies, as pointed out by many police forces. Of the hundreds of thousands of violent crimes that happen every year, do members want to know how many are as a result of long guns, for example, which have been the primary target of the Liberal government in recent months? I am referring to long guns belonging to law-abiding citizens, not criminals, because, of course, they do not listen to the laws. Do people know how many are a factor in those hundreds of thousands of violent crimes? It is less than 0.5%.
We also know that, of those who do commit violent crimes with firearms, the vast majority are not legally allowed to own firearms. Therefore, any law and all this time wasted would have no impact on them whatsoever. We are talking about a fraction of a fraction of people whom the Liberals are spending all this time and resources on.
I will remind the House that the Liberals are bringing forward phase two of their regime of confiscation of private property from law-abiding citizens. They call it a “buyback” program. They never owned the firearms in the first place, so I am not sure how they are buying them back. They are going to be spending billions of dollars on it.
There is an estimate from the Fraser Institute. Before the latest round of long gun bans coming forward with this so-called new definition and the hidden list that is being passed over sneakily to the firearms advisory committee, which would add hundreds of firearms to the ban list, the Fraser Institute estimated that the original May 2020 order in council, in essence, would be $6 billion.
Do people know how much good could be done in fighting violent crime and gun crime by criminals and gangsters with $6 billion? We could equip every port of entry with scanning technology. We could hire so many more police officers. We could heavily invest in youth diversion programs. We have seen that, in addition to the responsible gun ownership measures I have mentioned that have been in Canada for a number of years, which Conservatives firmly support, other measures that are important are getting youth when they are just getting led down the path of crime.
If we can get a 12-year-old when he is romanced by the gang to steal his first car, if we could just catch him then, extend a hand and show him a better way, speak to him in a way that is relatable, and have members of his community have the resources to support him, that young man could have a real life. He could have a family and a job, and be a responsible contributing member to his community. That is when we have to catch them.
If we could just take all the money the Liberals would be wasting, which would do nothing, as it says right in the data, to prevent violent crime and gun violence, we could do a lot of good. However, the Liberals are not open to that conversation. They do not want to talk about that. They are too busy fearmongering.
I mentioned this earlier, and I got a bit emotional about it, but the turn that the Minister of Public Safety has taken with his rhetoric against me and members of my party is very concerning. We can have a professional debate. We can have this factual discussion. We can have our viewpoints. They do not want anyone to own firearms, no matter how vetted they are. We believe in protecting the culture and heritage of Canadians. We can have that robust debate; we have been having it for decades. For him to have taken the turn he has taken, to go so dirty on this when I have done my best, as have members of our party, to ensure that this is a professional conversation and that we are leading and protecting people who are being kicked by the government and used as a political wedge on a daily basis, particularly in rural Canada, is very upsetting. I mean that very honestly.
I called him out on it today, and he did not apologize for his disgusting remarks. I found it very disappointing. Why can we not have a civilized conversation based on facts when it comes to this? I do not know. Maybe it is because they are not doing so well in the polls and we are doing pretty well. Maybe they want an election soon and this is a real winner for them, or has been in the past.
Now that we are building on the work of all the Conservative members and we are talking about the people this really impacts, it is resonating with people. Nobody believes it in the suburbs. Nobody believes it in Winnipeg. I represent an urban riding, and no one believes that Grandpa Joe and his hunting rifle are responsible for the gangsters in Toronto who are 3D-printing guns, smuggling guns, wreaking havoc and murdering innocent people and police officers. No one believes that going after hunters is going to solve that, yet we are seeing billions of dollars, countless resources, misinformation, disinformation and disgusting rhetoric from the public safety minister and others on the Liberal benches. It does not make any sense. There is no science or data to back it up whatsoever.
I could go on for quite some time, but of course I have been silenced by the Liberal-NDP coalition. In my remaining moments, I will move an amendment to the motion.
I move, seconded by the member for Peterborough—Kawartha:
In paragraph (a) by deleting all the words after the words “expand its scope” and substituting the following: “to (i) address illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, (ii) modify provisions relating to bail rules in offences involving firearms to ensure serious, repeat, violent offenders remain behind bars as they await trial, (iii) bring in measures to crack down on border smuggling and stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada”;
In paragraph (b) by deleting all the words after the words “by the committee” and substituting the following: “the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, other ministers of the Crown and senior officials be invited to appear as witnesses from time to time as the committee sees fit,”;
In paragraph (c) by deleting all the words and substituting the following: “Standing Orders 57 and 78 shall not apply to the consideration at the report stage and the third reading stage of the bill”; and
by deleting paragraphs (d) and (e).
2170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 6:43:07 p.m.
- Watch
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 6:45:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have listened to the member for, I believe, over an hour and a half in debate on this particular piece of legislation. It is very clear that the Conservative Party of Canada just does not support the legislation and will do whatever it can in order to prevent its passage. Given that, one has to expect that, if the general feeling of Canadians is that we should be strengthening our laws, the only way we are going to be able to do it is through some form of time allocation or closure. Otherwise, the Conservative Party would never allow the legislation to pass.
Given that, can the member indicate why it is that the Conservative Party will do whatever it can to prevent this legislation from passing?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 6:46:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, actually, the member is misleading the House a bit. His own government spent $200,000 in taxpayers' money on a consultation on firearms. There were 133,000 people who responded, and 77% of 133,000 respondents to the Liberals' own consultation said that nothing more was needed to limit access to so-called assault weapons. It is very interesting, because it is not what we hear from them, yet that is what their own evidence said. Again, “assault weapons” is a completely made-up term from that member and other members on the Liberal benches.
Further, of the 133,000 people they surveyed, 81% said no to limiting more handgun access, and 74% said the focus of any new measures should be on the illicit market, so I am not sure where he is getting his evidence. I am not aware of any other poll that polled 133,000 people, but the government's own consultation shows that he is wrong.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which she started yesterday. I applaud her public speaking talent.
I agree with her on many of the points she raised, but I disagree on others.
I agree that the reason we have reached this point is that the government has been unable to do the work people need it to do. Bill C‑21 was introduced a year ago. The amendments went back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security last week. We have really only been working on Bill C‑21 for less than a week so far.
Suddenly the Conservatives are filibustering. Things are not moving fast enough and this is urgent. The government is the reason it took so long. I agree with my colleague on that. However, I do not agree that this motion and Bill C‑21 as written are still anti-hunter.
She asked officials some questions. She is well aware that the government backtracked on the infamous list it tried to put in the Criminal Code. At this point, Bill C‑21 does not affect hunting guns.
I would like to know if she agrees on that much at least, because it is a fact.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are a number of things to point out. The list, first and foremost, may have been withdrawn from public scrutiny, but we have heard from the Liberal parliamentary secretary that it is going to go over to this so-called expert firearms advisory committee. Yesterday in the House, she said that they will look at what they should ban from that list. Those were her words. Therefore, I do not think the list is gone; it is just going to an unelected advisory committee with less transparency. The committee will have meetings in the dark behind closed doors, so to speak, so there is that.
I think part of the member's question was in response to the Liberal member who asked me the first question, and I would agree with most of her assessment. The committee has been working very well. Had the Liberals not been so sneaky with their underhanded amendment in November, we would have been past Bill C-21 a long time ago. This is on the Liberals for being underhanded and sneaky, bringing forward the worst amendments to attack hunters in generations, at the 11th hour in committee. That is not on us; that is on them. They dragged this out.
The minister then made us wait for six weeks. Now we are resuming. They call what the Conservatives have done a filibuster. The NDP lead on committee has spoken more than almost anybody else; I will make that very clear. It is ridiculous. Therefore, I reject completely that this is on the Conservatives. It is the Liberals' fault that we are in this mess with Bill C-21. People just have to look at the committee record to know that.
289 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of criticism reserved for the Liberals for when I give my remarks in a little bit, but I do want to turn to the remarks that were made by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.
I will say, first of all, that I have great respect for her, and I enjoyed working with her at committee very much. However, I have to take issue with the remarks that she brought forward in the House when she said she is being silenced. I have spoken with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and on several occasions, he has tried to extend the sitting hours of the public safety committee to give the Conservatives and every party more time to look at these amendments. Every single time, the attempts were either rejected or filibustered. There were attempts made multiple times; that has to be made very clear.
I will wrap up with the second point I want to make. The member talks about rural communities; these communities also care about RCMP oversight and transparency, especially the indigenous communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Why must they be made to wait for their turn to speak to Bill C-20, which has been waiting in the wings of the public safety committee and is an equally important piece of legislation? There has been ample time given. Why have the Conservatives not taken advantage of those offers?
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have to say on a personal note that I do greatly miss the member at public safety. As the NDP lead, I found him to be more reasonable. He was strong in his own convictions, but he was reasonable to work with. I am just learning how to work with the new member, and I am hoping for the best. However, from the rhetoric, I have some concerns about what he said about Conservatives so far, because these things are not factual or true. However, I will get to that in a second.
In terms of what the member said on rural communities and the RCMP, I agree that we have to talk about oversight. However, the member has to send that question over to the Liberals. How dare they put the committee at a standstill for months? That is not on us; that is on the Liberals. They did this, and I know that he agrees, because he said as much. Again, the member's question needs to be directed to the Liberals on why they made this situation at committee on Bill C-21.
Overall, on the idea that Conservatives have voted down the new NDP member's efforts to extend sitting, and there have been two times that he has done that, when the Liberals delayed this, the minister made us wait six weeks to get started, and there were shenanigans. Again, we could have been done this probably before Christmas actually, because we were going quite well throughout Bill C-21, even though we did not all agree. We would have been done before Christmas. That is on the Liberals.
However, now that the bill is back, he was suggesting that we have to go all the way to midnight today, tomorrow and then Thursday. Why would the committee members and the interpreters and everything else that goes into it have to do nine hours straight three nights in a row because the Liberals held this up, because the Liberals blew this up? That is on them. All those questions need to be directed to the Minister of Public Safety and the Liberal parliamentary secretary.
362 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 6:53:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. She is a real force and knows this file, and really what this comes down to is knowledge. It comes down to knowledge of the innocent people who are being targeted with the legislation. She knows them, and she listens to them; I think that is critical.
One of the things the member spoke about that I think is really important is the diversion and utilizing money, especially for young people, when we look at public safety, which is completely eroded in this country. In my own hometown, the police have basically had to put out a public awareness campaign about a violent offender whom they cannot hold on bail. That is how we protect our communities under the Liberal government; there is a public awareness social media campaign with a man's picture.
What does the member think we can be doing? What can the Conservatives do to undo this and divert young people especially to live a life of purpose instead of crime?
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 6:54:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the member very sincerely for working hard on this alongside all the Conservatives to fight against what the Liberals are doing to law-abiding citizens while ignoring and abetting the easy release of criminals on our streets.
As the member mentioned, and she told me this earlier as well, the police in her community are so desperate because the bail system is weak that they are having to turn to social media. They say, “Here is a picture on social media, moms and dads, and hopefully you notice it. This is a vile criminal on the streets, and there is nothing we can do about it, because the bail system has been made so weak by the Liberals with Bill C-75.” It is unbelievable that this is the case for members in her community. It is unacceptable.
Lastly, I would say that this is a Liberal government that has spent more money than any government in the country's history. If the government cared about youth diversion, it would be showing it. Yet, the government will spend over $6 billion going after law-abiding citizens and not impact public safety one bit.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was just in committee to debate Bill C‑21. I left so that I could come give this speech here, since the House is considering a government motion to speed up work on the bill.
The government claims to be moving this motion because the Conservatives are filibustering and trying to slow the work down at every turn. That is odd, because I have been on this committee for several years and I have seen the Conservatives engage in filibustering. However, this is not what I am seeing in committee right now. Everyone is acting in good faith.
When I asked a question earlier, I spoke briefly about the bill's history, but I will now speak about it in more detail. Bill C‑21 was introduced on May 30, 2022. In a few days, it will be one year since the bill was introduced. One would think that one year is enough time for parliamentarians to debate this bill, hear from experts in committee, conduct consultations and study the bill clause by clause. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.
Initially, this bill was about handguns. In the aftermath of a mass shooting at a Texas primary school, where several children were killed, the government rushed to introduce this bill saying that, at least in Canada, something was being done to counter gun violence.
The introduction of this bill was accompanied by a national freeze on handguns. When government officials announced this bill, they were backed by groups that supported the legislation, groups that want better gun control. These groups were behind the government when it made this announcement because it had made a promise to them. These groups, which were advocating for a ban on assault weapons, were told that the bill as it was drafted at the time did not cover assault weapons, but the government promised them that it would amend its bill to address both handguns and assault weapons.
The Minister of Public Safety and even the Prime Minister, if I am not mistaken, made that commitment, and those groups were hopeful that Bill C-21 would actually reform gun control in this country.
The government did amend its bill. It had made that commitment more or less publicly. Let us just say that it was not our understanding that the government would be amending the bill to ensure it addressed assault weapons. We were focusing on handguns.
In committee we heard from experts who talked about the impact of this handgun freeze in the country. Bill C‑21 deals with many other things. I am thinking in particular about the “red flag” provision and the family violence protection orders. There are some rather interesting things in Bill C‑21 and they could actually change things. That is what we were debating when parliamentarians were able to be heard in the House. That is what we were debating in committee. We wanted advice on these provisions from experts who appeared in committee.
In November, when this whole process ended, the government arrived with its infamous amendments on assault weapons. We are not talking about a minor amendment. It was some 400 pages of amendments. It was quite thick. The government presented these amendments saying that this was its measure for banning ghost guns, in other words, homemade guns. People order different parts online, build the gun at home and then take it out on the street. The government told us that the purpose of the amendment was to address that problem. We were okay with that. It is a growing phenomenon in the country.
However, we noticed that the amendment was a bit more complicated. It talks about a definition of banned assault weapons. I have to say that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of that. We have been calling for that for a long time, and it has been part of our election platforms. We have been calling for a ban on military-style assault rifles. We do not think that people should have weapons like that at home or that they should be on our streets. Civilians have no reason to have those kinds of weapons. We are not talking about weapons that are used for hunting, for example, so we are happy to see that a definition has been proposed.
The caveat is that the government is proposing a definition but then, in a schedule, it is proposing to include a list of hundreds of firearms in the Criminal Code.
When we have questions for the government, the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security are unable to answer a single one of our questions. They do not even know what they just tabled, what is in it, what impact it would have or what weapons are included. There was an outcry. Picture it: The Conservatives are asking questions, the Bloc is asking questions, the NDP is asking questions; everyone is trying to find out more about what is on this infamous list. The officials were supposed to support us in studying the bill but, in the end, they were answering for the Liberals, who were unable to explain their own amendments.
What we came to understand was that the government was trying to include weapons in the Criminal Code that were already banned by the order in council. The list included weapons that have been banned since 1990. It included firearms that were banned as a result of the 2020 order in council, which covered about 1,500 models of firearms. Others were added later. Close to 2,000 weapons are now covered by this order in council. The weapons covered by the 2020 and 1990 orders in council are part of the list.
We realized that there were about 482 new models that are legal right now that the government was trying to include in the Criminal Code. We thought that was odd. The government could have done this through an order, as it did for the other firearms, but it wanted to include this nearly 400-page list in the Criminal Code.
The list was rather difficult to understand. If a gun owner wanted to know whether their gun was going to be banned, they could do an electronic search for that model in the virtual document. If their gun came up in the search, they would be in a complete panic, thinking that the government wanted to ban that weapon.
However, from what we understand about the way the list is written, there were exceptions. As the officials explained to us, there were introductory paragraphs. There were lists of models of firearms, and then there was a paragraph that said “with the exception of these models”. People were finding their firearms on the list and thinking they were going to be banned when that was not actually the case.
There was also quite a bit of confusion about the definition itself. People thought that a gun with a muzzle energy greater than 10,000 joules would surely be prohibited. In Canada, the firearms that were banned by the 1990 order in council often met this criterion. Normally, these firearms were already prohibited. This created a lot of confusion. It is not surprising that people were afraid that their legally owned firearm would end up on this list. I would add that the gun lobby did not really help matters by spreading disinformation, which was then picked up by the Conservative Party. Hunters across the country were convinced that the firearms they use to hunt would be taken away.
After asking the government repeated questions, we figured out that there were indeed some firearms on this list that were supposedly problematic, in other words possibly used for hunting. We were not able to get clear definitions for either a firearm used for hunting or an assault weapon designed for a military context. The government could not provide any clear definitions. We said that these weapons could all be lumped together. Some are reasonably used for hunting. Consider, for example, the SKS. This weapon was created by the Soviet Union around the time of the Second World War. It was created for a military context and was used during that era in a military context.
Today, it is an affordable gun that is popular among hunters and indigenous people. We figured that it ended up on the list because it is technically an assault weapon, but it is reasonably used for hunting. For its part, the government tells us that this gun was used in some shootings in Canada, and therefore, it needs to be banned. There were no clear definitions, however. The government was unable to say why this type of gun needed to be banned and another type did not. This caused a great deal of confusion for everyone. We told the government to scrap this list. We asked it to come back with a new proposal, because no one was happy about this one.
The Bloc Québécois made a suggestion. Since a lot of people did not get the opportunity to be heard on these new amendments, we said we should invite them to committee and reopen the study, so these witnesses could at least tell us how they would be affected by this bill, if passed.
The committee members agreed. We decided to hold four meetings so that we could receive indigenous groups, hunting groups from Quebec, Ontario and just about everywhere, and so on. Alberta's chief firearms officer came to testify. Gun control groups obviously came back because they had not been able to share their thoughts on assault weapons when we were only talking about handguns.
These people came back to testify in committee. When we asked them whether they had been consulted by the government before these amendments were introduced, they told us that they had not received a call. They had not been consulted at all, whereas normally, when the government decides to introduce new legislation, it does some work beforehand to meet with those concerned, to see how they can work together. It tries to determine whether the bill will work for them. The experts know the subject, they are the ones who are on the ground. They can point us in the right direction, or in a direction that is potentially acceptable. However, we were told that the government had not done any consultations.
The government was feeling a lot of pressure from all the parties, but also from within its own Liberal caucus. Some Liberal backbenchers had obviously not been consulted about the amendments. Some members who represent rural ridings did not agree that firearms that could reasonably be used for hunting should be considered restricted weapons under the Criminal Code. The pressure was mounting.
In a dramatic turn of events, in February, the government withdrew its amendments on assault weapons. We were left wondering whether we should continue to study the bill as it stood or whether we should wait. The government said to wait because it wanted to work on something. It wanted to reintroduce a definition of prohibited weapons and therefore a definition of assault weapons, and it wanted to hold consultations.
The minister travelled around Canada a bit. He met with indigenous groups and hunting groups to find out whether they agreed with him. It seems the consultations were not very positive. However, the minister did his job. It was a bit too late, but he did it. In my opinion, he should have done that from the start.
It took several meetings, weeks even, before the government came back with a new proposal. Last week, the Minister of Public Safety made a big show of announcing that he would return with a definition of prohibited weapons. As I said earlier, the first amendment also included elements about ghost guns, and everyone agreed on that. He also announced new complementary measures.
In our negotiations with the government, we understood that certain things can be done through legislation, through a bill, specifically Bill C‑21, but it is not always so straightforward. Other changes need to be made through regulations, and the minister is the only one who can make regulations. Oddly enough, the same day he announced that the amendments were being reintroduced, he also announced that he was going to do some things by regulation, including a proposal that the Bloc Québécois had made on how firearms are classified.
I put this question to several witnesses who appeared before our parliamentary committee. Currently, a firearm can be sold on the market in Canada when it should be classified as restricted or prohibited. The RCMP will eventually realize that it is on the market. Why is it not the other way around?
I believe that the RCMP should approve a firearm and ensure that it is above board before it is put on the Canadian market. The process should be similar to the one for pharmaceutical companies. I believe that when a pharmaceutical company wants to put a new drug on the market, it must be approved by Health Canada before it can be sold. I made that comparison because it seems to me that it would be another safeguard that would prevent new, unauthorized firearms from being on the market.
The minister made another rather interesting announcement. He announced that he was going to enact regulations on high-capacity magazines. That is one of the things the Bloc Québécois has been asking for. Many gun control groups have been asking the same because although a gun is designed to hold a magazine with five rounds, it can accommodate a magazine with 30 rounds. The magazines are often universal. This becomes fatal if the person holding the gun wants to kill several people in a very short amount of time. We felt that these high-capacity magazines needed to be prohibited. The Minister of Public Safety told us that they were already illegal in Canada, that it was not supposed to be like that.
What we learned because several groups told us and we saw it ourselves, given that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recently visited the RCMP vault, is that some magazines can be blocked with the help of a small rivet. For example, a magazine with 30 rounds could be blocked and limited to five rounds. The magazine therefore becomes legal because it is technically a five-round magazine. This was still on the market and still legal. In some of Canada's well-known shootings, the gunman simply removed the rivet to create a high-capacity magazine and that cost the lives of dozens of people. We then said that this type of magazine needed to be banned. I am very pleased that the minister has made that commitment, but now he needs to follow through. It is nice to promise things, but I expect these regulations to come into force quickly.
The minister also said that he would re-establish the Canadian firearms advisory committee. He is proposing to do so because it seems that when the government was considering what to do about the banned firearms and wanted to put the 482 models in the Criminal Code, there was a small lapse in political courage. The minister was unable to make a decision and said he would re-establish this advisory committee, appoint experts, people who support gun control, hunters and indigenous people and then ask them to make a recommendation about firearms classification, for example. He could then make a regulation or issue a new order in council.
That seems promising. We have always said that firearms classifications should not be up to politicians. This committee's mandate should be clear. The committee should be established quickly, it should make its recommendations quickly and the minister should move quickly.
As I said at the start, the Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of banning military-style assault weapons. By proposing his new prospective definition that will only apply to weapons that will come onto the market in the future, the minister is leaving 482 weapons on the market that he initially wanted to include in the Criminal Code.
The Bloc Québécois said that we needed to find a reasonable and acceptable solution. The government determined that approximately 12 of these weapons could potentially be used for hunting. It should have its committee look at them to figure out how to classify them. As for the remaining 470 weapons, the minister can ban them by order as of tomorrow. He can even do it today if he wants to. He does not need the House's approval to do that.
If the government is really serious about banning military-style assault weapons, it can do so immediately by order. That is what the Bloc Québécois recommends. That is the proposal that we made to the minister. I suggested that in a private conversation that I had with him. We said it in the media. We made the suggestion a number of times in a number of places. We made the suggestion publicly and I think that it is a reasonable one.
It really bugs me when the Conservatives argue that Bill C‑21 and today's motion target hunters in Canada. That is not true. Thanks to pressure from the Bloc Québécois, that list was taken out of the Criminal Code. What we are saying is that the government needs to ask its experts what to do about weapons used for hunting. As for the other ones, though, the government should ban them immediately.
I do not think taking those kinds of intellectual shortcuts and fearmongering serves the debate. People are writing to their MPs. My Bloc Québécois colleagues tell me about the people who write to them. These people are worried. They have heard a Conservative MP give a speech or do an interview, and they are worried their hunting gun will be banned. They think the Bloc Québécois supports that. That is not the case. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's work, hunting guns were taken out of Bill C‑21. I think that is good news for hunters. Maybe more people need to know about that, which is why we will try to play a bigger role in this debate.
There is also good news for airsoft fans. Two days ago, we got air guns taken out of Bill C‑21. The government wanted to ban them. This is good news for them too.
3171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 7:15:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments in regard to the issue of perception or misrepresentation, because it does hit home when individual members of Parliament are using social media and other mediums to communicate a message that is not accurate. There are many Canadians, for example, who believe that this is a mechanism to take away hunting guns and impact indigenous communities.
I wonder if the member could reinforce or continue her thoughts in regard to the dangers of spreading that sort of misinformation and the anxiety that many communities and individuals experience as a result.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is dishonest to spread this information during the debate. I am not saying that the government is beyond reproach. After all, its original intention was to lump all guns together, whether they are used for hunting or not. It has backed down. That is good, and I applaud that. Now we need to take action.
Those members' actions are not contributing to the debate at all. I am not afraid to call out the Conservative Party, because it is members of the Conservative Party who are using social media to scare people. Just yesterday, one of my colleagues was talking about how the Bloc Québécois was going after hunters, and he said that the motion we are debating today was another attack on hunters. I had no choice but to tell him that what he was saying was wrong. Sometimes people are good at playing with the truth and coming very close to lying, and sometimes it is just a lie. That is dishonest. I am talking about what is being said on social media, not here in the House. It does not contribute to the debate.
Let us be clear about what Bill C-21 does at this point. As I said, right now, hunting guns and air guns are off the table. This bill is about something else entirely. I want to be clear about that.
242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 7:17:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for addressing the problem with the Liberals putting us in this position. We are now debating and rushing through a very important bill that would impact over two million law-abiding firearms owners. It just drives me nuts that we have to rush this debate through because of the Liberals' inadequacies in bringing it forward in a timely fashion.
The member did a good job of that, but I have two quick questions for her.
First, she talked about the consultation process that the minister promised. I would like to know if she is aware of a single Bloc riding that was consulted. I can speak with pretty much 100% certainty that not a single riding held by a Conservative MP was consulted in this process. It is really not fair to the vast majority of firearms owners or Canadians that the minister and the government are not actually consulting with them.
Second, I take issue with the member's hunting rifle comment in that all of the firearms that were banned on May 1, 2020, were legal firearms for hunting and sport shooting. Can the member just name one that has been banned that was ever in use by the Canadian Armed Forces?
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
