44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
- May/16/23 10:47:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to talk a bit about how—
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 10:47:50 a.m.
- Watch
Order. A colleague just started her speech. Could hon. members honour that it is her time to speak?
The hon. member has the floor.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, thank you for your intervention.
I could spend all day talking about how the study of the bill proceeded in committee. I found it very interesting. It was my first real experience with a bill in committee since I was elected in 2019. I worked from beginning to end on the bill with my colleagues Ariane Francoeur, who is a constituency assistant, and Maxime Duchesne, a researcher.
We often see the government and the Conservatives surrounded by their armies of assistants and staff. There were only two of us, sometimes three, and we did what we could. I think we can be proud of the progress we made and the improvements we made to the bill.
Before getting into the details, I want to talk about a motion to amend that we added to the Notice Paper today. It is an amendment we were unable to present in committee because of a little procedural hiccup. We wanted to change a section in committee, but since it had just been modified by an amendment, we were unable to. Since we could not propose our amendment in committee, we went to work yesterday to ensure we could present it during the study of the bill at report stage. It concerns the “yellow flag” measure.
For those who are unaware, the yellow flag measure is intended to protect people who are directly in danger of gun violence, often women who are victims of domestic violence. It allows chief firearms officers to revoke a licence in cases of domestic violence or criminal harassment, when a protection order has been issued against the licence holder or when an emergency prohibition order is issued by a judge.
The government had the right intention when it came to implementing the yellow flag measure. However, some concerns were raised. Some people were given too much discretion. In this case, the owner was given the choice to surrender their firearm to anyone and too long a time to do it. We therefore wanted to change the deadline for licence holders to surrender their firearms to 24 hours following the revocation of their licence. That is what we changed by proposing the relevant amendment with the government, the NDP and the Green Party.
Then, when it came time to make a change regarding the person to whom owners would have to surrender their guns, we were unable to do so. That is what the amendment in today’s Notice Paper is about. It is the amendment we are presenting, and I am very happy to see that the government is presenting the exact same amendment. Our goal is the same, namely to protect women who are victims of violence. This reinforces the yellow flag measure.
The study in committee was extremely interesting. We were able to improve the bill. It is expected that the opposition parties will criticize bills, and that is a good thing. A year ago, when the government introduced Bill C-21, it was far from perfect. Instead of simply criticizing it, we made constructive proposals and submitted a bundle of amendments with a view to improving it.
There is more to this than just presenting an amendment in committee; we have to work behind the scenes with our colleagues to make our intentions clear and explain what it will change. Members of Parliament do not work alone. They also work with organizations that are paying close attention to the bill.
We were approached by groups who support gun control, people who have had very difficult experiences and who are familiar with the subject. I would particularly like to mention the work of the National Association of Women and the Law, which filed an entire brief. If everyone prepared such comprehensive briefs, it would help us in our work. Having such well-worded suggestions showed us exactly where we had to amend the bill and the reasons why it would be beneficial to do so. I would really like to thank these groups. I named only one, but there are many of them, and I am sure they know who they are.
The Bloc also made progress in all of this. We were talking about the infamous list of firearms the government wanted to include in the Criminal Code last November. We understood that not everyone was on board. The government failed to properly explain its reasoning. No one could make heads or tails of it and no one understood anything.
Amending the Criminal Code is not an easy task. It was necessary to include firearms that were prohibited in the 1990s and others that were prohibited in 2020, and to add new ones. All of them had to be lumped together to amend the Criminal Code. We know that the only list of prohibited firearms that is constantly being updated is the one maintained by the RCMP.
This list complicates the Criminal Code for nothing. The same work is done twice, and everyone is confused. We told the government that a list was not the best way to go. It confuses everyone. In addition, it makes hunters nervous. We saw this when a rumour went around that firearms that are reasonably used for hunting might be added to the list. I understand why hunters were afraid that the firearms they use for hunting would be prohibited as a result of this measure. The Bloc said that the best solution was to provide a good definition of a prohibited firearm, meaning a military assault-style weapon, and to make a clear distinction between this type of firearm and firearms used for hunting.
Two weeks ago, the government came back with its proposed amendment. The new proposed definition was not accompanied by a list. That is good news. If any hunters are listening today, they will understand that the firearm they use for hunting will not be included in the Criminal Code. That is very good. It is good news for them. The downside is that we are still leaving the 482 models on the market. When Bill C-21 is passed, we may have better gun control in Canada, but there will still be hundreds of assault-style models in circulation.
We therefore made a suggestion to the minister. We said that we were aware that those models included some firearms that are reasonably used for hunting. The government had identified a dozen of them. We suggested that it take those 12 models and give them to the firearms advisory committee that the government wants to resurrect. We understand that the committee will include people who are in favour of better gun control, representatives of indigenous communities, hunters and various other experts. These experts could issue an unbiased recommendation to the minister. In the meantime, the minister could immediately issue an order prohibiting the remaining 470 models, since we know full well they are military-style weapons that civilians should not have in their possession. That is what we proposed to the government.
Here is another good thing the Bloc Québécois did, and it is really not an exaggeration to say that we worked hard at it. The first version of the definition of a prohibited firearm included semi-automatic hunting rifles. They wanted to prohibit a firearm that is not a handgun, but that is a semi-automatic hunting rifle. How can we tell hunters that their hunting rifle will not be prohibited if the words “hunting rifle” appear in the law and in the definition? I think that removing these words in the French version, which were different in English, also reassured many people. I am very happy they were removed.
In its initial form, Bill C‑21 would have prohibited airsoft guns, which are used in games. These airsoft guns could be described as toys. The problem is that, over the years, manufacturers wanted so much to make them resemble real firearms that it has become confusing for police officers. Someone walking around with an airsoft gun can be confused for someone holding an assault weapon. The government therefore intended to simply ban them all, like the firearms that are already prohibited.
Airsoft afficionados across the country expressed their outrage. We can understand that. Why should they, who use airsoft for sport or as a hobby, be penalized? We succeeded in removing airsoft guns from the bill. That is very good news, a great achievement for the opposition parties. The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservative Party voted in favour of removing airsoft from the bill. The government abstained, so we were successful. That is very good.
I understand that I do not have much time left, but the good news is that I will be back tomorrow. I will also be here all day for questions and comments. We can discuss the bill further then.
1489 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. One thing we heard from the Conservatives is their refrain that we want to take hunting rifles away from hunters and Canadians living in rural areas. We know that is not true.
I believe that the member also represents a rural riding. Can she explain why she is comfortable with this definition of firearms so we can reassure Canadians from rural areas?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I attended a dinner in Saint‑Alexis‑de‑Matapédia last week at a club for people 50 and over, and one of the organizers is even a member of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs.
It was a pleasure talking with him and letting him know that there has been a great deal of disinformation about Bill C-21, and that everyone was under the impression that hunting rifles were going to be prohibited, although that is not at all the case.
At that point, we had just adopted the definition. Hunting rifles were not at all affected by Bill C‑21 as amended. This is still true, after the committee study. I want to reassure hunters because the Bloc Québécois worked hard to ensure that hunting rifles are not affected.
Is the definition perfect? No. Could it be? We can never really achieve perfection, but we could certainly do more about the assault rifles that remain in circulation.
However, it would be false to say that hunting rifles are affected by Bill C‑21.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up a very important part of the bill in terms of the red and yellow flag provisions. It is my understanding that both the red and yellow flag provisions could potentially put victims of violence at further risk and have a profound impact on our indigenous communities as well.
I am wondering if my hon. colleague could expand on the potential risks of the red and yellow flag provisions and whether any stakeholders came forward, specifically women's groups, and asked for these provisions to be put into the bill.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague asks a very good question. Yellow flag measures are effective measures that can help protect women who are victims of violence. We even improved some of the clauses pertaining to yellow flag measures in the bill. We have no problem with that.
When it comes to red flag measures, however, I do not know how many Quebec and Canadian women’s groups appeared before the committee, sent us briefs, wrote open letters and sent letters to the Minister of Public Safety saying that the government thought it was helping them with the red flag measures when it was doing precisely the opposite.
These groups are afraid that this type of measure will put women who are victims of violence at even greater risk, that it will relieve police officers of their responsibilities if, for example, a woman in danger calls the police to ask them to take away her violent spouse’s guns. They are afraid that the police will say that a woman can now go see a judge for a protection order or an injunction—I get those mixed up—and that the police officer will not do anything because the measure is now an option. It is an additional tool.
Since all women’s groups were unanimous in this, we could not vote in favour of it. The Bloc Québécois voted against the red flags, but the government and the NDP decided to go ahead with them anyway.
254 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with the hon. member. If this was the first time that she had been involved in such an intensive clause-by-clause study, it did not show. She has always been very professional at all points of the debate during which we studied the bill clause by clause.
At the report stage, I note that some of the amendments proposed by the Conservatives are comical and bizarre, because they contradict what they have always said. The Bloc Québécois, on the other hand, tabled a motion that I think is important and which seeks to close the loopholes that currently exist for manufacturers and importers, which will now have to undergo a process. For the time being, it is an honour-based system.
I want to ask a question of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. Is it important that we close this loophole that has existed for years and makes it so that manufacturers and importers find ways to circumvent legislation that was put in place?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. This is something that we have tried to incorporate into the bill for reasons that I will not explain, as it will take too long. We were unable to table the amendment. That is why we have returned today, at report stage, with this amendment. It is such an important measure.
I understand that this was rejected by the Chair, but there is still hope because, when the Minister of Public Safety announced the new definition of a prohibited weapon two weeks ago, he also announced his intention to proceed by regulation. There are things that can be done both by legislation and sometimes also by regulation.
I think that ensuring that firearms are pre-classified by the RCMP could be a—
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:03:50 a.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out that the purpose of report stage is to consider motions in amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, I find it odd that the Conservatives are putting forward amendments that do the exact opposite of what they proposed in committee. It will be up to them to defend their intentions in that regard. The other report stage motions will, I think, improve Bill C-21. That much is clear after this whole process.
Some major gun control organizations, including the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns and the National Association of Women and the Law, appeared before the committee. They all proposed amendments that improved the bill.
Bill C-21 also provides a technical definition that is important. These are all important elements to consider.
The NDP was instrumental in bringing in an approach far more sensible than that of the Liberal government with the amendments it presented last November. Those amendments were brought forward without any consultation with indigenous communities and hunters.
The amendments that strengthen every aspect of the red flag and yellow flag measures significantly improve Bill C‑21. That is extremely important.
I cannot speak about the bill without speaking about the Conservative filibuster. I found it profoundly disingenuous. On the one hand, Conservatives protested that they were not filibustering the bill, and on the other hand, on social media, they were making speeches and saying very clearly how they were filibustering the bill.
Yes, it is true that the Liberals tabled amendments that were done without forethought and without any understanding of the consequences. Amendments G-4 and G-46 were tabled without any consultation at all. The NDP pushed back against that. I cannot show this, but I have my amendment book in front of me. It would be considered a prop for me to show G-46 withdrawn, so I will not do that, but I find it strange that, since then, Conservatives have continued to act as if those amendments were still on the table. We just heard the Conservative public safety critic, yet again, talk about amendments that have been withdrawn.
The NDP played a key role in this. Members will recall both my statements in the House and the presentation of a motion at committee by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, which basically put pressure on the Liberals to withdraw those amendments, so they are non-existent, and for the Conservatives to pretend they are there is passing strange. Maybe that contradiction between, on the one hand, Conservatives trying to take credit for withdrawing the amendments and, on the other hand, trying to pretend the amendments are still there plays out with the report stage amendments, which, again, do the opposite of what Conservatives said they wanted to do with the bill. It is very strange.
I think it is fair to say that the filibuster was finally ended with the support of members of the House from virtually every other party, so that we could have a common-sense approach, article by article, with 20 minutes per clause. It is important to note that the 20 minutes was renewed numerous times. It was part of the motion that we could renew it, that if there was all-party agreement we could renew the discussions.
I think it is fair to say that members of the Conservative Party who participated in the deliberations in clause-by-clause were very constructive. The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound presented an amendment that was adopted unanimously, to provide provisions for those legal, law-abiding firearms owners who may be experiencing a mental health crisis. Conservatives voted with the other parties, so all parties voted together, on the vast majority of the amendments, including those around ghost guns. That is important because ghost guns are of a critical nature. We have seen an explosion of the use by criminals of untraceable firearms across the country, so the ghost gun provisions are absolutely essential.
Law enforcement has been calling for them for some time. In the United States, the Biden administration has seized over 20,000 ghost guns used in the commission of criminal acts over the course of the past year. In Canada, we are not even aware of what the full numbers are. I have requested that the Ministry of Justice start tracking the use of ghost guns, but anecdotally, in some parts of the country, there has been a 10-fold increase in a year. In other parts of the country, it is even higher than that.
The ghost gun provisions were absolutely essential. Again, it is fair to say the Conservatives actively participated in that. They seem to be singing a different song now in the House, but the reality is the committee process worked. The committee process went through all of the amendments, despite the fact, and I think it is fair to say, sometimes the Conservatives were repeating their questions numerous times trying to slow down the process. However, we got through all the essential amendments, with one exception, and that was on indigenous rights. That passed unanimously.
The committee process absolutely worked. The fact one can renew a 20-minute clause discussion absolutely worked, and the Conservatives were not able to block the ghost gun provisions, which law enforcement needs. Why the Conservatives were blocking ghost gun provisions, they will have to explain to the Canadian public.
It is not just that. We talked a few minutes ago about the importance of closing the loopholes for manufacturers and importers. We have functioned on an honour system, and this is something that simply cannot be permitted to continue, so closing those loopholes were absolutely essential.
The NDP tabled amendments, as well as all other parties, and we worked to strengthen the red flag and yellow flag provisions of the bill. It is fair to say, from the comments of the National Association of Women and the Law about those provisions, that those improvements are absolutely critical. There is no doubt the bill was improved. It was over a very intense week, but a week that allowed us to go clause-by-clause and work through the bill. The product is now before the House with a number of helpful report stage amendments and some, as I mentioned, inexplicable amendments from the Conservatives that contradict all the positions they have taken up until now.
The NDP also tabled amendments on airsoft, and this was vitally important to ensure the airsoft community could continue to engage. That is important. Airsoft has approached the whole issue of a framework around it in a very open way. There had been provisions that would have basically pushed airsoft aside. The NDP pushed the motion on that and succeeded in getting it through.
The indigenous rights component is absolutely fundamental. I know my colleague from Nunavut, who has been one of the foremost advocates for indigenous rights in the House of Commons, would say as well that the provisions, which are that nothing in Bill C-21 abrogates or derogates from indigenous rights under section 35 of the charter, are fundamental and should be in place in all government legislation moving forward.
We are tackling criminals. We are ensuring that manufacturers and importers now have a legal process to go through, and we are enhancing indigenous rights. We have also ensured, by pushing the government to reconstitute the firearms advisory committee, that it will include indigenous people, hunters, farmers and people who are advocates for firearms control. Putting Canadians in a room and letting them have those discussions and consultations is absolutely, fundamentally important.
All of these things are extremely essential. The one amendment that needs to be passed, hopefully in the Senate, would be to ensure the International Practical Shooting Confederation is also part of the exemptions around the use of handguns. This is essential. Other countries that have outlawed handguns allow an exemption for that organization.
1344 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work in committee and for his efforts in helping us all work together. I think we can all agree that we have achieved a good piece of legislation together.
The work we did on ghost guns is critically important. Those of us from the Lower Mainland in Vancouver have heard police forces talking a lot about the importance of getting this right.
The member opposite asked me a question after my speech. I have been reflecting on that question, and I would like to ask him a very similar question. We saw the Conservatives, time and again, filibuster and try to delay. They would vote for some of the amendments, but then delay again.
I would love for my hon. colleague to explain to me why he thinks Conservatives filibustered, and why he thinks they continue to pretend that these amendments, which have been withdrawn, still exist. Perhaps, most importantly, why does he think that, today, they are putting forward amendments that contradict their own voting record in committee?
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is really up to Conservatives to defend their record on this, but in committee, I proposed about a dozen times for a time extension to continue clause-by-clause. A dozen times, the Conservatives said no, and a dozen times, I asked to let us keep working.
Even last Tuesday night, we finished at 6:30 p.m., and I moved for unanimous consent to keep working, but Conservatives shut it down. That happened a dozen times, until the House of Commons directed the committee with a structure that allowed us to get through every single amendment, which was a really effective committee study.
I cannot explain how Conservatives acted in committee. I cannot explain how they are acting at report stage. I can say that the parties that have worked together have produced a bill that—
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:15:56 a.m.
- Watch
We will continue with questions and comments.
The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I recall over a year ago, when Bill C-21 was introduced, just how giddy with glee the NDP was until it had an epiphany about the impact this was going to have on its rural ridings. Those ridings include Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, Courtenay—Alberni, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, North Island—Powell River, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Timmins—James Bay and Nunavut. All of those MPs reversed course on Bill C-21 when they, in fact, were supporting it at the beginning.
Canadians are not stupid. Members in those ridings and the citizens in those ridings are not stupid, and they will remember what the NDP did with Bill C-21.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned some of the best members of Parliament in the House of Commons. They are members of Parliament who stand up for their constituents. They are members of Parliament who actually do things to make a difference in people's lives.
The reality is that it is the NDP who stopped both the G-4 and G-46 amendments. Conservatives pontificated, but they did not move anything procedurally. For weeks and weeks, Conservatives just sat there. They fundraised, of course. They love fundraising off of misinformation, but they did not do anything in the House. The difference between New Democrats and Conservatives is that New Democrats get the job done.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about consistency. Over the past few months, the Conservatives have repeatedly criticized Bill C‑21 on the grounds that it attacks sport shooters and athletes. Clause 43 actually mentions these elite sport shooters to protect them from the handgun freeze, but—surprise, surprise—the Conservatives want to delete that clause. I wonder if my colleague can explain to us why they are saying that, on the one hand, we have to protect shooters and, on the other, we have to delete the only clause that protects them.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. The Conservatives say they have to have exemptions, but now they want to get rid of this exemption. That is ridiculous, and it goes to show how the Conservative Party is just not taking the Bill C‑21 debate seriously. They did nothing to delete the amendments the Liberals put forward in committee in November. They did nothing to improve the bill. I am glad they supported amendments from the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc, but the Conservative Party contributed absolutely nothing at any point in the process. Now the Conservatives are even contradicting themselves. They are proposing amendments that cancel measures they themselves said were essential.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:19:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight pursuant to the order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:19:38 a.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the minister’s request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
