44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
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 do not know whether my colleague is aware, but on May 16, 2022, the National Association of Women and the Law sent a letter to the Minister of Public Safety on behalf of dozens of women's associations, including the YMCA of Greater Toronto, the Canadian Women's Foundation, Women's Shelters Canada, and the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, to name but a few. In this letter, they tell the government that they do not want the red flag measure, that they are afraid that it will put women at greater risk and that law enforcement will shirk its responsibilities when it comes to removing a gun from a licence holder whose spouse is a victim of domestic violence.
Can my colleague explain to me why the government, despite the advice of all these women's groups, has nevertheless decided to introduce this red flag measure?
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a very good point. For some reason, people tend to think that gun violence is something that only happens in downtown Toronto. Gun violence happens right across our country in urban areas and in rural areas.
In particular, the example that she referenced would have been a situation where the red flag provision could have come in, such as with a petition to the court in an emergency circumstance where an individual has grave concern over weapons in a household that are being stored or could potentially be used in a violent manner.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the people I know in my community who are gun owners are among the most sterling citizens. They have a tremendous sense of responsibility. I would say that if their civic duty was shared by all Canadians, we would be better off as a society.
I take the member's point that many people who are killed by guns are killed by illegal guns. However, I am sure that the member would agree that some people are killed by legal guns, whether it be in the context of domestic violence or suicide.
Is the member saying to this House that it is absolutely outside the realm of possibility that a red flag or a yellow flag made possible by this law could ever save a life?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, another reason why these red and yellow flag laws are so unnecessary is because police have already been clear that they have have the authority without a warrant to act immediately to seize firearms if they determine there is a risk. Canada already has red and yellow flag laws. I even read recently about a gentleman in the Ottawa area who has hunted his entire life. However, during the pandemic, sadly, his wife and a sibling died, and the mental toll caused him to check into a local hospital. While he presented no threat, his firearms were seized proactively. He had to go to court and convince a judge that he should be allowed to have them back, and the judge sided with him. Clearly, we already have yellow flag laws in existence in Canada, as this case demonstrates.
Now, it should go without saying that Canada is not the United States. While going to court to seize firearms may be necessary in the United States, it is not the case in Canada. As I said before, in Canada when there is a threat, the police have the authority to act immediately without a warrant to secure firearms. Unfortunately, these Liberals will spend more time role-playing as members of the U.S. Congress rather than addressing the distinct issues that exist here in Canada.
Finally, and what I see as the clearest demonstration of the punitive nature of Bill C-21, is the exemption for Olympic sport shooters. Groups like the International Practical Shooting Confederation, IPSC, came to committee to plead for an exemption for their sport, but they were rejected by the Liberals. There has been no evidence presented at committee that IPSC, cowboy-action shooting or any other high-level sport shooting discipline posed any risk to public safety, and yet they were treated with utter contempt by the Liberal Party.
Now, the pressure is so high in the Liberal caucus to shut down any shooting sport in Canada that they even tried to silence one of their own members at committee who expressed concerns about this heavy-handed ban. The MP for Kings—Hants raised a very good point about a constituent who competed internationally with IPSC, and through no fault of his own, his sporting firearm was lost by Air Canada. Now, because of Bill C-21, he would never be able to pursue his passion again. Even in countries like the United Kingdom, where handguns are completely banned, there are exemptions for IPSC and sport shooting.
The Liberals provided no public safety justification for this move. They have determined that their objective is to eliminate all legal handgun ownership in Canada, and they could not allow an IPSC exemption, because it would allow a small group of people to continue pursuing their passion, which brings me to the real reason Bill C-21 was created.
The Liberals can try and point to raising maximum penalties for smugglers, but this is just a fig leaf to cover the real purpose of the bill. The real purpose of the bill is the sterilization of the culture of legal sport shooting in Canada. It is well known in the firearms community that ranges are funded by dues-paying members who are required by legislation to be a range member as a condition of a restricted licence. Without any new licence-holders, the income for gun ranges will dry up, leading to the closure of almost every gun range in Canada. The prevention of any sport shooting exemption beyond Olympic-level sports ensures that only a very elite few, we are talking about maybe a couple of people, would be able to legally acquire a handgun in Canada.
I am also very concerned about the Liberals' Canadian firearms advisory committee. It appears to me that this advisory committee would not be very independent and that the Liberals have already prejudged what kinds of firearms will be banned, including many commonly used hunting rifles. The effect of this will reverberate throughout the country as firearms retailers shut down, trade shows close shop and sport shooting clubs close due to a lack of members. That is the Liberal agenda in black and white: the wholesale elimination of an entire part of our country's culture and heritage, and passions enjoyed by millions of Canadians through generations. Maybe if there were a public safety reason for all of this we could do a cost-benefit analysis, but there was no evidence provided, and there is no truth to the claims that this will improve public safety.
This legislation demonizes a group of law-abiding Canadians for the political benefit of the Liberal Party. It provides a convenient distraction from the abject failure of Liberal ideology to keep our communities safe. After all, has the country ever become safer since Bill C-71 has been implemented, or the May 2020 OIC or since the handgun freeze has come in? Has it stopped handgun violence in our streets? Absolutely not. This country has only descended further into violence and lawlessness.
NDP members had an opportunity to take a stand on the side of hunters and sport shooters and instead they sold out. They would not support Conservative amendments to ensure exemptions for sport shooters and hunters. Instead, they chose to prop up the Liberal government. The fact is, they had the support. We could have united together. I have been getting calls in my office from people who live in the riding of Edmonton Griesbach, because they cannot get through to their NDP MP to tell him how upset they are with the NDP stance on the bill.
The Conservatives will always stand up for law-abiding firearms owners. We are going to stand up against this punitive Bill C-21 legislation, which would do nothing to improve public safety in our country.
983 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member sharing some tragic stories that he personally experienced or of people he knew. I have a question, though. Could he point out anything in Bill C-21 that would have actually helped to prevent the specific tragedies he experienced?
Second, I would like his feedback on the red flag portions of Bill C-21, because we heard at committee, during the debate, review and study of Bill C-21, from women's groups, and pretty unanimously from all the stakeholders, that the proposed red flag laws that are now in Bill C-21 are costly, ineffective and redundant. In particular, Heidi Rathjen from PolySeSouvient said that:
First, there is not one women's group that asked for this measure.
Second, it's not relevant in the Canadian context, because...victims of abuse can call the police. It's up to the police to come and investigate, and they have all the legislative tools necessary to remove the weapons....
...[the red flag law] is dangerous in the sense that it could...allow police to offload their responsibility onto victims.
I would just like the member's comments—
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, all I can say is that red flag rules are something we heard about extensively from many stakeholders we spoke to. They are important for addressing the issues of gender-based violence as well as intimate partner violence. I disagree with the member that they will not have any impact. They will have an impact. We have seen it in other jurisdictions, and I believe they are an important part of this bill that we need to maintain.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to talk more about the red flag provision. We know that an impressive number of women's groups in Canada have said that they are against such a measure. These women have said that this will take responsibility away from law enforcement and put victims of domestic violence in danger if they have to go to court to try to get a gun taken away from a potentially violent licence holder.
I named some of those groups earlier. They include the Canadian Women's Foundation, Women's Shelters Canada, the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the National Association of Women and the Law, and PolyRemembers.
Dozens and dozens of women's groups have said that they are against the red flag provision. That is why the Bloc Québécois voted against this measure. However, the government decided to go ahead with it anyway with the support of the NDP.
As the critic for status of women, how does my colleague see the government's refusal to listen to women's groups?
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is what I was saying earlier when I was talking about the good work done by the Bloc Québécois. We need to listen to what is happening on the ground.
As I was saying earlier, on the one hand, the Conservatives are unfortunately spreading disinformation about hunting rifles and on the other hand, I get the impression that the Liberal government is practising fake feminism again.
They are trying to ease their conscience. A red flag provision looks good and is impressive. It gives the impression of concern for the issue of violence against women.
However, if they had listened to the groups who work with women every day, if they had done the in-depth work, they would have realized that the red flag provision does not actually meet the needs of women who are victims of violence. I am thinking about PolyRemembers and all the groups my colleague named.
This only contributes to giving the government the image of fake feminism, when it could have proposed real measures to protect women who are victims of violence.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
