44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
- 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
Madam Speaker, it is very important that I rise to speak to this bill today for a number of reasons. This bill reflects the will of the House, the will of the committee and the will of Canadians.
On a somewhat personal level, I will say that we are all here as a members of Parliament. Our families have jobs that they do back home, and so do our brothers and sisters and so forth. One of my siblings, one of my brothers, has been a first responder for the Vancouver Police Department for a long time. If I can put a date on it, my brother and the Minister of International Development, the former defence minister, actually went through police training together many decades ago.
I reside in Ontario. My family all resides in British Columbia and, for the longest time, when my brother did his job, I never thought about his safety. Recently though, over the last few years, I do think about his safety quite a bit. My heart goes out to all of those families who have been impacted by gun violence, particularly, of course, the first responders who are doing their job, day in and day out, whether it is in Prince Rupert, Prince George, Halifax, Vaughan or the Lower Mainland in Vancouver as part of the Vancouver Police Department. This legislation we have brought forward, after exhaustive consultation, is another piece of recognizing that we must do something. We must act.
I am glad to see that the committee on public safety has incorporated amendments. I am glad to see that hunters, folks pursuing a traditional way of life, sports shooters and so forth, can continue to do what they do because I know many of them, on both sides, from my time growing up in northern British Columbia in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I remember going up to the Skeena River and people going hunting and shooting for moose or deer. As well, in my riding of Vaughan, many folks go up to northern Ontario to go hunting. It is important that they continue to do those pursuits. I am glad to see that.
At the same time, handguns and AR-15 style weapons have no place, in my view, in our society. We need to make sure Canadians feel safe in their community. We need to make sure that Canadians know they are safe and that is what our government is doing.
I wanted to put that thought forward because not a day goes by now when I do not think about my brother on duty and what he does for the Vancouver Police Department keeping the citizens in Vancouver safe. Not a day goes by now that I do not try to call to ask how he is doing and how he and his family and his daughters are doing because that is where we are today. I am glad we are acting.
I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments, firearms. We have said all along that this bill is historic. It is the most significant step in gun reform in a generation. Canadians deserve safe, common-sense firearms laws, while, virtually every day, we see media reports of gun violence in our communities.
Each one is a tragedy involving someone, whether a child, a parent, a partner, a friend, a brother or a sister, who was loved and is now missed by their community. That is exactly why we have taken the time to reflect, consult and discuss Bill C-21 with survivors, indigenous communities, industry groups and hunters, and why, after meticulous study and consideration, we recently brought forward amendments to the bill. We know that gun safety cannot wait, but we have been careful to balance the urgency of this bill with the need to get it right. This government has done more than any other to advance gun safety.
Three years ago, we banned 1,500 assault-style firearms, those that have no place outside the battlefield of war. We introduced the bill before us today, Bill C-21. This bill would inscribe into law the national freeze on handguns.
It would target organized crime, with stiffer sentences for trafficking guns and new charges for altering the magazine or cartridge of a gun to exceed its lawful capacity. It would take much needed steps to address the role of firearms in gender-based violence. While there is no obligation for survivors of gender-based violence to use these laws, they can help prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands and stop needless tragedies before they occur.
Someone who currently or previously had a restraining order against them would no longer be able to obtain a firearms licence. We are proud to introduce new red flag laws that mean courts could take firearms away from those who are a danger to themselves or anyone else. Bill C-21 also contains new yellow flag laws to allow chief firearms officers to suspend an individual's firearms licence if the CFO receives information calling into question their licence eligibility.
Furthermore, with the support of our colleagues in SECU, we adopted amendments that would help protect victims of violence and those at risk of self-harm by a firearm. Firearms licences would be revoked within 24 hours in cases of domestic or intimate partner violence, and there would be new exemptions for those who use a firearm for their employment. When a weapons prohibition order or protection order is issued, this would be reported to authorities within 24 hours. Further, if a person is undergoing a mental health crisis, they would be able to temporarily transfer their firearm to another person or business, helping to keep themselves or their loved ones safe.
Again, survivors of violence are under no obligation to take such actions, and measures would be taken to protect the identity of vulnerable individuals who do provide information to the courts. Canadians' safety is our utmost, paramount concern. Bill C-21 is another step to bring in needed, prudent and necessary measures on ending and preventing gun violence.
We have heard jarring statistics from my colleagues that the more available guns are, the higher the risk of people dying unnecessarily in tragic situations of homicide and suicide. We can all look at the statistics in the United States for that fact. Let me be frank, the only sensible response to these kinds of cold, hard facts is the kind of gun reform we are discussing here today. As soon as we know that something is dangerous and unnecessary, we have an obligation to remove that risk from our communities and protect the people in them. This is particularly true when those who are at highest risk are already marginalized in our society and vulnerable to violent outcomes.
When it comes to assault-style firearms, we are compelled to act now. We know that if the most lethal guns are unavailable for purchase, if they are present in fewer numbers in our communities, we can drastically reduce the number of victims of gun violence. Some folks talk about causation and correlation. One fact we know is that in the United States the use of AR-15 type assault rifles is killing people needlessly. In Canada, we are not going to allow those types of U.S. gun laws to come here. We are going to make sure we have sensible gun laws that make sure that those types of weapons do not exist in our country.
We know that if the most lethal guns are unavailable for purchase, if they are present in fewer numbers in our communities, we can drastically reduce the number of victims of gun violence. This is what Canadians want. The proposed technical definition of prohibited firearms allows us to proactively address advances in the firearms market and keep firearms designed for the battlefield off our streets. Incorporating technical criteria in this definition puts the onus on industry to do their part in protecting our communities from assault-style firearms.
We also brought forward amendments to address emerging threats, such as ghost guns. Bill C-21 would make all illegally manufactured firearms, also known as ghost guns, prohibited firearms, create new offences to prohibit the possession, access, distribution, making available or publication of digital files and blueprints, and regulate the transfer and importation of certain parts to ensure they are not being used to create ghost guns. Again, this is not about taking guns away from responsible handgun owners, hunters or sport shooters. This is about tackling violent crime and preventing senseless, tragic deaths.
That brings me back to the amendments to Bill C-21 we recently introduced that were adopted last week in committee. I applaud the committee members for their hard work on this very important piece of gun safety legislation. It is prudent legislation to prevent needless, senseless deaths by guns. Guns kill people.
As I mentioned earlier, we have taken the time to speak with constituents from coast to coast to coast. It does not matter where one goes in this great country, in every corner, we could find skilled, experienced hunters who are more than happy to chat for hours about how it is more than a hobby for them, how it is been passed down through generations, and how it forms a key part of their culture and way of life.
That is why these latest amendments provide clarity and protections around responsible gun ownership. We are focused on the most pressing issue, keeping Canadians safe. Again, as we have said from the beginning, no single initiative would end gun violence, but Bill C-21 is a major component. It is one of three key pillars of our plan. The second pillar is strengthening resources to tackle gun crime, including smuggling, preventing firearms from entering our borders in the first place and targeting ghost guns. The third pillar is about investing in communities. Initiatives like the national crime prevention strategy, the gun and gang violence action fund, and the building safer communities fund get straight to the roots of violence. They stop it before it starts.
I look forward to questions and comments.
1723 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the very beginning of his speech, the member mentioned that there is no place for handguns in Canadian society. I think I quoted him almost verbatim. While I agree there is no place for illegal handguns that criminals are using to commit crimes, I would like to remind him of a quote, especially since sitting very close to him there is a proud Olympian who might find this quote interesting.
It is by Lynda Kiejko, an Olympian in women's pistol shooting. She said, “I take great pride in representing my country on the—”
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:30:36 a.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The rule applies both ways. We do not mention the presence or absence of members in the House.
The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I should say the member has a good Olympian on his team over there, who may be interested to hear this.
Lynda Kiejko said:
I take great pride in representing my country on the world stage, as do all athletes. I'm sad that due to the handgun ban, the order in council, Bill C-71 and this proposed legislation, I will not be able to represent Canada on the world stage. Athletes who come after me won't even have an opportunity to compete, as they will have no access to competition firearms.
What would the member opposite like me to tell this Olympian, who has proudly represented our flag at the Olympics in the past?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:31:26 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know that sometimes tempers can rage in this place, but I believe that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport was using language that, I am pretty sure if you were to look at the Standing Orders, would be deemed unparliamentary. Although I do not think it was meant to be on the record, we need to hold ourselves to a high standard in this place.
I am wondering if you would rule as to whether or not the language he used was appropriate.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:31:59 a.m.
- Watch
I cannot make a ruling because I did not hear it.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am deeply apologetic if I offended the member opposite with any words that I used sitting here by myself.
22 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:32:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would now like to answer the question of the hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.
There seem to be some conversations going on.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:32:33 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member opposite is continuing to heckle, telling me to be a man about it. This kind of misogynistic language in this House of Commons is not welcome. He is telling me to be a man about after I stood and apologized. I do not know what he would like me to do. I was talking to myself and muttered something under my breath.
That type of misogynistic language has no place in this House.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 11:32:54 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member did apologize and the matter should lay there and we will respect the people who are trying to speak in their allotted time.
The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I very much enjoy watching the highlights at the Olympics for trap shooting and clay shooting. My understanding is that with the legislation, Olympians here in Canada pursuing such sports would have an exemption to do so. If I am incorrect, I will retract that statement, but my understanding is there is an exemption for that.
When I have travelled to visit relatives in Italy, there are police officers and families who practise that sport, and I have watched them. It is interesting to me and something that goes to sensible gun legislation—
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
