SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 198

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
  • May/16/23 12:54:05 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, there are unique constitutional exemptions that place some of the roles of the chief firearms officers directly into the hands of provinces. I am sure the member from the Bloc Québécois, especially with his attitude toward Quebec, provincial autonomy and whatnot, would be very much onside with ensuring the Liberals would respect provincial jurisdiction. It is pretty evident that they do not. I do applaud him because he, unlike so many in the House, has taken the time to get what I am assuming is a possession and acquisition licence, which would require going through a course to learn how to use a firearm and the respect required. Those of us in the House, who are making the rules, regulations and laws surrounding so many different issues, all make an effort to engage on the subject matter. We may not be able to become experts, but we should do our best to learn and engage with the subject matter. I applaud any member of this place who would take the time to get their PAL to understand the rules and regulations as they are now. Those who go through that process would learn that maybe we have a pretty good system designed to keep Canadians safe. While they target those individuals who follow the law, they are letting criminals out on our streets and people are dying as a result.
236 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 1:11:24 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, it was December 6, 1989, at École Polytechnique de Montréal, January 29, 2017, at the Quebec City mosque and so many other dates. Those dates need to resonate with my colleagues when they consider voting on this bill. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-21. We can say without hesitation that the Bloc Québécois's contribution is undoubtedly why this bill is finally acceptable. I would like to note the exceptional work of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, without whom this bill would certainly not have progressed in the same way. That said, it is far from perfect, as it was initially botched by the government. We can see that, as with Bill C-10, Bill C-11 and so many other bills, the Liberal signature is to introduce flawed bills and be able to brag about having done this and that. In reality, it is others who improve them and deal with the problems and shortcomings of each bill that the government proposes. Bill C‑21 is a flagrant example. The bill was tabled in May 2020. It was essentially a freeze on handgun acquisitions and a grandfather clause. In that respect, the government did in effect prohibit most models of assault rifles with its order in council on May 1, 2020, which was issued quickly, a short time after the killings in Portapique, Nova Scotia, but several models were not covered, while new models continue to enter the market. Also, the prohibition on May 1, 2020, did not cover all “modern” assault weapons, thus allowing weapons like the very popular SKS, which is frequently used in mass shootings in Canada, to remain legal. In the briefing to members and political staffers, officials also confirmed that the government planned to amend the bill to add other measures, which was unheard of for a newly tabled bill. There was no rhyme or reason. In other words, the bill was not at all ready and the government only tabled it to ride the wave of support for gun control following the latest unfortunate shooting. That is called opportunism. I would even add a real lack of desire to be truly effective. In short, the government was not necessarily able to bring forward a fair and reasoned bill, but action was required because it was the right time and looked good. The results are there. In fall 2022, the government tabled a package of amendments to its own bill. More than 400 pages of amendments were submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, although the studies were already completed. These amendments included new measures to combat ghost weapons, but also a definition of a prohibited assault weapon and a list of more than 300 pages of prohibited weapons. Here is another demonstration of what the Liberal government has made us accustomed to: anything. These amendments were tabled without explanation, without briefing and without a press scrum. Even Liberal members of the Committee seemed unable to explain these amendments. The various positions of the advocacy groups have become entangled—that is normal, of course—in a mish-mash of various readings and interpretations, most of which were justified or unjustified, since we were in a sort of grey area. By drawing up this list, the government created a host of ambiguities and possibilities for circumvention, and, at the same time, penalized hunters and airsoft sport shooters. This does not include the weapons market already trying to circumvent the list. The concerns kept growing. Hunters' fears are a good example. The Bloc Québécois listened to hunters. We therefore proposed reopening the study so that experts could be brought in to testify on the matter of assault weapons. The Bloc Québécois opposed the list in the Criminal Code because it made it needlessly long. The Criminal Code is not a real-time reflection of models of weapons and their classification. It is my colleague from Avignon—La Métis—Matane—Matapédia who was a guiding light and kept the reason for logic throughout the process. Through pressure from all over, her team's research and her consultations with scientists and advocacy groups, she and the Bloc Québécois research team made a big difference in the study process of this bill. It makes me very proud, today, to take the floor and re-tell the entire story. The government then tabled a gag order to quickly conclude the study of Bill C-21. However, the government itself is responsible for the slow progress of Bill C-21. It preferred to bring forward an incomplete bill quickly after the killings rather than take a few more months to table a complete bill. Despite these shortcomings, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑21. Initially, the bill was criticized by hunters, pro-firearms control groups and air gun enthusiasts. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, it was improved and satisfied most of the groups. Again, the Bloc was proactive and made such fair proposals that they could not be refused. The government has acted softly for years, leading to gun violence everywhere, particularly in Montreal. Prohibited weapons are circulating illegally. Bill C‑21 is a poultice on a wooden leg, as my father would say. It is not nothing, but it is little, and the time wasted with the parliamentary exercise of cobbling together a badly designed bill does not save time. However, time is running out. It was a mistake to try to create a bill full of shortcomings, that practically put hunters, sports enthusiasts and killers in the same boat. What a lack of will and respect for the afflicted, the victims, and for the innocent. In fact, the ultimate urgency was to table a bill developed by experts and scientists and improved by consultations with associations and as many representations as needed. The government is proposing quite the contrary, and that is unfortunate. As usual, the Bloc is being valiant. We have done the work by bypassing and adapting the limitations and mistakes of the government. The next step is urgent. Weapons are flowing into Canada. What will the names of the next victims be? Who will lose a mother, a father, a daughter or a neighbour? What does the Liberal government plan to do to prevent illegal weapons from crossing the border? I hope it will learn from its mistakes. Above all, I hope that the next steps in the fight against crime will be firm and frank gestures, based on clear legislation and taking into account the realities and needs of organizations that oversee, that work and that intervene in the area of public safety.
1166 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 2:04:39 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the 34th edition of the Festival d'été francophone de Vancouver will be held from June 14 to 25 at the Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver, which is in Vancouver Granville, and at other venues across Vancouver. This year, there will be 12 concerts featuring francophone artists from British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and elsewhere. As usual, the festival will draw big names in French music, established artists and local and national rising stars. This important festival is supported by our government and celebrates our francophone communities and their diversity. It is also a wonderful way to celebrate music, creativity and the incredible talent of francophone artists from across Canada. I look forward to attending many events, and I invite everyone to attend.
127 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 2:15:59 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, certain artists, certain songs take us back in time, maybe even to our youth. There are even some that bring us back to a specific era, perhaps to an important milestone, for example. I do not need to sing the following lines; it is enough to recite the following: Quebec's future will be sound, if it does let itself get pushed around. We all know how it goes and immediately want to sing, “Quebeckers, we are Quebeckers”. This takes me back to the 1970s, to the excitement of René Lévesque's first term in office and the Parti Québécois. That was François Guy. Although François Guy embodied a past era of Quebec song, he also embodied its future. François Guy was about the Société pour l'avancement de la chanson d'expression française, or SACEF. He was about mentorship and “Ma première Place des Arts” awards. He was about love for the French language and the desire to see a new generation of artists sing in French. François Guy passed away on Friday. To his family, to his wife, Isabelle Lajeunesse, to all his loved ones and all Quebeckers, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I extend our deepest condolences. Thank you for the memories, but, more importantly, thank you for mentoring the François Guys of the future.
253 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 2:27:02 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government agreed to a gimmick it called the Century Initiative, which we will not bother translating into French. It does not deserve to be translated because, at that point, we would all be speaking English. The Liberals said that they would drop the slogan. That is fine. Then, the Liberals said that they would abandon the idea of 100 million Canadians by the end of the century because we did not like it. In any case, we will all be dead in 77 years. However, they decided to keep the target of 500,000 new immigrants per year as of 2025. That is what is going to shrink Quebec and bring about its permanent downfall. Do the Deputy Prime Minister, the voice of reason, and her government really think that Quebeckers are that stupid?
140 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 2:27:44 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very honest and straightforward with our Bloc Québécois colleagues and all Quebeckers. French in Canada is very important and the Quebec nation is a priority for our government and for me personally. We truly understand how important the linguistic and cultural vitality of the Quebec nation is, and I must say that, as the Minister of Finance—
68 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 2:28:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have an expression in Quebec that essentially means people need to walk the talk. I will explain that some day. That being said, this government has messed up on immigration, with one million cases being backlogged. The Liberals are incapable of managing the foreign students file. They are incapable of managing the temporary foreign workers file. In a year and a half, they have been unable to do it. What would make us think that a year and a half from now they are going to suddenly be competent enough to deal with 500,000 immigrants?
99 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 2:29:04 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue by saying that we truly believe in Quebec. We truly believe in the importance of the Quebec nation. That is why we are investing in the French language across Canada. That is also why we are investing in Quebec's economy. We are investing in health care. We are investing in child care. We are investing in the green plan for industry. All these things are priorities to Quebeckers, and they are our priorities as well.
83 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 3:05:24 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, to begin, I want to make it clear that we are talking about exploration, not production. Before our government took office, less than 1% of our oceans were protected. Today, over 14% of our oceans are protected and we will get to 30% by 2030. If members want to talk about this subject, then we can talk about the fact that, when the leader of the Bloc Québécois was serving as the Quebec minister of sustainable development, environment, wildlife and parks, he allowed drilling on Anticosti Island. He said, “I will tell you in no uncertain terms, the Government of Quebec intends to make progress in developing the oil industry in Quebec.”
120 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 3:09:24 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Quebec City region for asking that question. Like me, he must know that in Quebec City, there are people in my riding and all over who save lives not only with early intervention and not only with harm reduction, but also with supervised consumption sites. If my colleague is willing, he is welcome to come visit these people. Many of them are in Quebec City's lower town. Every day, these people, who are far removed from the ideology of his leader, fortunately, are there to help people in our region.
99 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 7:46:59 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for the speech he just gave. It was very heartfelt. It came from the depths of his being. It is an honour for me to rise in the House to represent the people of the beautiful riding of Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier, which is home to many hunters, fishers, sport shooters and farmers. There are also some indigenous people. I am very proud today. My first reaction when I learned of the amendments made to Bill C‑21 by the Liberals was simple. They had missed the mark. They were taking the wrong approach. We are used to the Liberal government's inconsistency, whether it concerns Bill C-11 or Bill C-13, the bill to which I have made an active contribution over the past few months. Yesterday, we passed this bill. The Conservative Party supported it, but we wish the government had done more. Nevertheless, we align ourselves with the intentions of the Government of Quebec and official language minority communities. Now we are talking about Bill C-21, which also demonstrates the inconsistency of the Liberal government. The government is not walking the talk. I will use the same expression as the Bloc Québécois leader, who said earlier in the House today that he will explain to the Liberals what this expression means one day. I urge him to explain it to them as soon as possible, because it is quite obvious. We have noticed the same thing. I believe that all parliamentarians in the House agree on the objective of this bill, which is to improve public safety in Canada. This is critical, because after eight years of this government, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related homicides have doubled. I am not making this up. This is not me saying so. It is not partisan rhetoric. It is not the evil Conservative Party attacking the good Liberals. This is a fact. I do not understand how they can defend this. The Liberal government's approach to achieving this goal is completely out of touch with reality. As I said, the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is an area with many hunters, fishers and farmers. It is largely rural. As in many other rural and semi-urban ridings in Canada, hunting season is a highly anticipated time of year. For many, it is a tradition, while for others, it is a family activity. It is a hobby. Young and old gather to practise this sport that has been passed down from generation to generation. Some hunt purely for pleasure. For others, it is an outright necessity in order to feed themselves, as a result of the Liberals' inflationary practices that are leaving Canadians hungry. Two weeks ago, I was attending the annual convention of the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs. I did not see any Liberals there. It took place in Saint‑Jérôme. What I heard from the people I met at the annual convention was clear: They are worried about the consequences of this bill. This federation is not a run-of-the-mill organization. It is a solid institution that represents hunters and anglers throughout Quebec. Its mission is to represent and defend the interests of Quebec's hunters and anglers, help teach safe practices and actively participate in wildlife conservation and development to ensure that resources remain sustainable and that hunting and fishing continue to be practised as traditional, heritage and recreational activities. I have a question. What is criminal about that? Absolutely nothing. These people simply want to enjoy nature and engage in an activity that has existed for millions of years. It is important to remember that, in the past, people bartered with what they hunted. They would trade pelts for mirrors. This is nothing new. Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I want to point out that the federation's head office is located in the most beautiful riding in the Quebec City region—I will make the area a bit smaller—Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I want to commend the federation president, Marc Renaud. I would like to read an excerpt from a news release issued by the federation after the government tabled its new amendments on May 1. It says, and I quote: The federation understands the importance of public safety and supports the government's efforts to keep Canadians safe. However, we have raised concerns about how effective the methods proposed in Bill C‑21 will be in meeting that objective. We believe that gun violence is a complex problem that requires a holistic approach, one that takes into account underlying factors such as poverty, mental health, organized crime, human trafficking and drug trafficking. We also recognize that firearms are not the only source of violence, as demonstrated by recent events in which other tools were used to commit crimes. We are therefore calling for a comprehensive review to come up with meaningful, intelligent and lasting solutions to these complex social problems. To me, this is a call for a common-sense approach. Let us not reinvent the wheel. Again, as I was saying from the outset, this bill misses the mark. Let us be clear here: Hunters are not the reason the crime rate in urban centres is higher than ever. We need to address organized crime and violent reoffenders to make the streets safer across Canada. Hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous people are not criminals. When I attended the convention two weeks ago in Saint‑Jérôme, I felt very comfortable. These people are cordial, polite, civilized and intelligent, and I enjoyed meeting them. I did not feel like I was in danger. These are not criminals. Again, hunters, farmers, sport shooters and indigenous people are not criminals. When we talk about criminals, we are talking about people who break the law. We could bring in a whole host of laws to have one model over another, to allow or not allow a certain model or to allow it with some exceptions. We can do that, but the criminals will never respect these rules. We need to address the problem differently. A Conservative government will invest in maintaining law and order and securing the border rather than spending billions of dollars to take guns away from law-abiding Canadians. Today, we have repeated over and over that amendments G‑4 and G‑46, the amendments that sought to ban firearms used by hunters and sport shooters, were withdrawn. Why were they withdrawn? It is because the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in Ottawa, did its job. The minister boasted about those amendments and vigorously defended them, but he retreated when faced with common sense because the Conservatives made him see the light. I must say that they had other accomplices from other parties here in the House of Commons. It was not the Conservatives. The government's new amendments are just a way of getting the work done through regulations. It is not meeting the target. We are not fools. We are used to these government tactics. I will repeat what we have said all day long: The Conservative Party is the only party to protect Canadians across the country, whether they live in large cities or rural communities. This is a very technical bill. We worked very hard in committee to study the amendments, despite the time constraints imposed by the Liberals. We want to do a good job on this bill, as we do on many others, but unfortunately, we are being muzzled. We are doing some work, but we could do so much more. When we are in government, we will stand up for hunters and workers, because these individuals have rights, and we will work to protect them.
1353 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 8:01:24 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the head office of a federation in his riding that represents hunters from all over Quebec. There are obviously other associations across Canada that do the same thing, and all of these associations have a very specific goal. My colleague talked about their goals and objectives in his speech. I do not know whether my colleague is a hunter, but since he is from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, he is very familiar with the connection between hunting and nature in his riding. What is that connection?
92 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border