SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 199

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2023 02:00PM
  • May/17/23 10:33:22 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I suppose if the member wants to believe the talking points she has been handed to read in the House she would make that argument. What she is failing to understand is that we are not talking about a mandatory penalty or even a minimum penalty; we are talking about a maximum penalty. Anyone who understands the criminal justice system knows that a maximum penalty means it cannot be more than that, but it certainly does nothing to penalize crime. There are a lot of measures that could be taken to deal with the gun crime we are seeing in our cities, but that one is laughable to say the least. The bill does zero at trying to address crime.
122 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:34:15 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, my colleague talks a lot about doing more to address crime. I agree with him. The only measure in Bill C‑21 that the government proposed for countering firearms trafficking is to change the maximum sentences from 10 years to 14 years for anyone found guilty of firearms trafficking. Although this is not a bad measure, the problem is that it is quite rare for someone to get the maximum sentence of 10 years these days. Why? It is because criminal organizations use people who do not have a criminal record to smuggle illegal firearms across the border. As a result, these people get lesser sentences. They rarely get the 10-year maximum. Today, with Bill C‑21, even if we increase the maximum sentence to 14 years, will that really have an impact? I do not think so. I think that my colleague may agree with me. Does he think that is enough?
158 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:35:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the member. That measure will not have an impact on crime in this country. This bill only affects gun owners who are not responsible for crimes.
32 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:36:20 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Uqaqtittiji, although there was a lot of disinformation and misinformation in it, I thank the member for his intervention. I would have very much appreciated hearing about, with respect to Bill C-21, how hard my NDP colleagues are willing to work to protect the rights of people. I asked a different Conservative member about the outdated information Conservatives are sharing this evening in this debate. I know Bill C-21, in its current state, has the best balance and offers many ways to ensure that the right of indigenous peoples to hunt is protected, and that hunters who are lawful gun owners are able to continue using their rifles. In this whole process, it has been Conservatives who have made a lot of mistakes, including trying to ensure there are no more exemptions for sport shooters. I would like to ask the member what his read of Bill C-21 is with respect to what rifle is being banned that would not allow hunters to hunt or would not stopping criminals from using—
175 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:38:11 p.m.
  • Watch
We are out of time. I have to give the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie a few seconds to answer.
21 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:38:17 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not really even sure what the member's question was, but I did hear her talk about there somehow being disinformation in what I had to say. I would challenge her to stand up to give an example of one piece of disinformation she heard. However, I can say what is disinformation. Every time the NDP members in the House stand up and call themselves an opposition party, that is disinformation. What we are seeing is a—
82 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:38:40 p.m.
  • Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle has the floor.
12 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:38:46 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with respect to firearms. To begin, I would like to say that, as everyone knows, I will be voting in favour of Bill C‑21. The reason is that, thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois at committee, most of the criticisms have been addressed. Today, we have a bill that is far from perfect. The government rejected our proposals, which were very reasonable. However, let me say that Bill C‑21 is better than it used to be. Let us remember that the bill was introduced to attack the black market for firearms in Canadian cities. Instead, the government attacked hunters. In Laurentides—Labelle, outfitters, nature reserves, controlled harvesting zones and hunting cabins are an integral part of our regional identity. Hunting is a major activity. It is important to protect it and keep it alive. That is why I am pleased to say that is is thanks to the Bloc Québécois that hunters will be able to continue practising their sport in Laurentides—Labelle. I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who is here beside me. I want to congratulate her on a job well done. It must have taken her so many hours, emails and studies to go from layperson to subject matter expert. She deserves so much credit. What happened is that, together, we convinced the government to withdraw its amendments and remove the reference to hunting rifles. I am going to address hunters, but before I do, I want to mention that the government tabled 400 pages of amendments without any explanation. There were thousands of models of firearms listed in those pages. The government was disorganized, to be frank. This made hunters angry. That is an unacceptable way to work. In its bill, which is intended to curb gun crime in cities, the government had used some strange definitions, to say the least. It referred to hunting rifles when they were not the problem. It is easy to imagine how angry hunters were when they saw that they were being treated like criminals. Moreover, the government did not consult them. We need to go after the gun runners and criminal groups first and foremost, not the people who drive down Highway 117 to the controlled harvesting zones to hunt. Hunting rifles were never included in the bill. The government wanted to create confusion, and it worked. It took political pressure from the Bloc Québécois for the government to recognize its mistake and change the definition to make it clearer. I want to say to the hunters, to everyone who contacted me, to the hundreds who have written to me, who have called me, who have stopped me in the street to express their concerns, that they are not criminals. They are not dangerous. The Bloc Québécois will always stand by their side. They have already seen that. I will be by their side to stand up for their sport, their strength and their honour. They know how to handle guns. They know how to protect their guns and, above all, how to respect their environment and all livestock. I would like to tell them that they are not the problem. The government went after the wrong target and needs to acknowledge that. I am pleased to be able to address the people of Laurentides—Labelle on this subject because there has been a lot of disinformation and manipulation of public opinion. I thank those who had the patience to listen to everything that was said. Today, we set the record straight. That is what happened. I have said it before and I will say it again: When Bill C-21 was introduced, hunting rifles were not at all affected by the bill. That is still the case today after the study in committee. I want to reassure hunters because the Bloc Québécois worked really hard to ensure that hunting rifles would not be affected. I will say it again. Hunting rifles are not affected. The Conservative Party is once again trying to lead people to believe that Bill C‑21 is the biggest assault on hunters across the country. Unfortunately, I do not know whether they read the bill as amended by the committee. That is a good question. No hunting rifles will be banned with the passage of this bill. The new definition of prohibited firearms is prospective, which means it will only apply to weapons that do not even exist yet but will come on the market in the future. I do not know why they keep scaring hunters with this. In fact, I wonder, are they doing this to get votes, regardless of the facts? That is another question, and it is unfortunate. At the start of my speech, I talked about how important hunting is in Laurentides—Labelle. I am thinking about the Papineau-Labelle wildlife reserve, the Rouge-Matawin wildlife reserve and the Mazana controlled harvesting zone. I will name several. I am thinking about Mekoos, Jodoin, Cecaurel, Mitchinamecus, Fer à cheval. I have been to all of them, they are my playground. I could also mention the Air Mont-Laurier outfitters. People fly in to hunt and enjoy nature in the north. I can assure everyone that Bill C‑21 will not interfere with our activities. As the member for Laurentides—Labelle, I will always stand up for my region, its economy, its environment and its development. I have two riding neighbours on the Liberal benches. I want the people of Argenteuil—La Petite Nation and Pontiac to know that the Bloc Québécois understands rural issues. We support rural communities, and we recognize all the effort that goes into regional development. We always work toward maintaining the right balance between everything. We work for these people. The Bloc Québécois has been very clear. We want to see fewer handguns on the streets of Montreal and Laval. We must make our streets safer. We must ensure that criminals do not have access to guns to shoot people in the street. This is why the Bloc Québécois is working so hard in committee and in the House to get the government back on track. We are the voice of reason between the sloppy Liberals and the hysterical Conservative. In closing, I want to tell the people of Laurentides—Labelle that the Bloc Québécois is the party of the regions and of regional development. It is the party that represents the voice of Quebeckers in the House of Commons. I will always work for the people in my community. That is why I am here.
1212 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:48:31 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned in her speech the poor crafting of the original bill, the massive amounts of amendments introduced by the Liberals and then, of course, the work done by her colleagues, of which she is so proud. I am incredibly proud of the work my colleagues did to bring forward common-sense amendments to make the bill better. Some of the Liberals in this place have stood today and accused Conservatives of a lot of the propaganda, disinformation and misinformation, which she also mentioned, for the purpose of fundraising. Does the member think the Liberals have used the bill in the same way and for many of the same purposes? Could she speak to how important it is to do that hard work to be an opposition party that works to propose solutions for legislation?
139 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:49:33 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. With what is happening with the different parties, I believe that there is always more we can do. The Bloc Québécois acts according to its conscience, intellect and solely in the interest of our people. I believe that answers the question that the opposition parties, especially the Bloc, which keeps the interests of Quebeckers in the forefront, are not being partisan or playing politics with this issue. On one side or the other, there were good ideas at every stage in the past few weeks.
96 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:50:34 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, the member for Laurentides—Labelle had very thoughtful remarks on this bill. I have found over the course of the debate that there has been a lot of muddying of the waters, where Conservatives and people on social media are bringing up the firearms advisory committee, which I will state for the record is a body that already exists. They talk about how the government is going to use that body to strike out firearms. That is a power that the government already has under the Criminal Code. I would like my colleague to reflect on that as part of the misinformation out there. A lot of people are trying to confuse those existing powers with those found in Bill C-21. Could the member clarify that those are in fact very separate elements?
137 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:51:19 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, someone mentioned political strategy earlier. What I said earlier in my remarks was that this needs to be addressed, because it is serious. With my colleague leading the way, the Bloc Québécois has put pressure on the government to stop. People are being shot down in the street. At some point, the government needs to wake up and take action. Yes, certain measures can be taken, but it is also important to have a clear conscience and carry out consultations in order to end up with a good bill, even if that does take a while. At the same time, this is one step, but it is far from complete. That is why I said that the process was very messy right from the outset.
131 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:52:20 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk to us about the red flag provision that the government proposed in Bill C‑21. I think she has heard me talk about it often. In the beginning, it looked like a good measure that would help women who are victims of domestic violence, but all of the women's groups that appeared before the committee told us that it would not help them. They were afraid that it would cause law enforcement to shirk its responsibilities and put the burden on victims. The Bloc Québécois voted against these provisions in Bill C‑21. The Conservative Party did too. However, the government and the NDP still went ahead with this measure. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. I am sure that she has women's groups in her riding that are disappointed that the government is moving forward with this measure.
161 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:53:11 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a very specific example of the importance of listening to our constituents and representing them. When we consult people, when we listen to them and understand them, then we need to act on what they say. That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois did with the red flag provision.
57 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 10:53:37 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks by thanking the pages as we take part in an evening debate. I do not know if this is a first for Parliament, but I am speaking while wearing my cleats, which I have not taken off because tonight was the long-awaited soccer game between the House of Commons representatives, the Commanders, and the team of pages. I think there were over a hundred of them on the sidelines. I was surprised at how relentless they were. While they are great at bringing things to people in the House, they are also great at taking the ball away from us. Still, we won two to one, with a goal from Benoît Dupras, whom I want to commend. He is from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. He is a parliamentary intern and scored the winning goal. I wanted to mention that. I rise today as a member who represents a rural riding to speak to Bill C‑21 on gun control, and also to recognize the insights of the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I invite members to take the time to read the report entitled “A Path Forward: Reducing Gun and Gang Violence in Canada”. The first step in solving a problem is to understand it. That is what I do with my own files, including the issue of athletes who are victims of abuse and mistreatment. Sport is a cause for concern at this time, and the Bloc Québécois will continue to demand that the government adopt a holistic approach by launching a public inquiry to understand the systemic problems that helped maintain the culture of silence and the toxic culture. That is why I am not at all surprised by the results achieved by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who was able to constantly seek a consensus. I thank her, because I am convinced that she did all the necessary work to achieve the result that we have before us. I tip my hat to her because it was a successful collaboration. Developing effective public safety legislation is not limited to theory, but also requires close attention and a deep understanding of the problems underlying gun violence. It also requires, as I was saying a few minutes ago, a comprehensive approach and a careful analysis of the contributing factors to this complex reality. Parliamentarians have understood and recognized that developing effective legislation cannot be done in a vacuum. It is essential to listen to and understand the diverse perspectives of stakeholders, including public safety experts, rights advocacy groups, law enforcement organizations and members of civil society. This inclusive step opens the door to gathering a variety of ideas and taking into account the concerns and experiences of all the players involved. One of the contributions of the Bloc Québécois is to ensure that these people, especially our hunting federations, are heard. Communities affected by gun violence needed to be listened to first. It is important. Parliamentarians obtained valuable information on the local realities, the specific needs and the potential solutions. This helps create a global strategy that meets the unique challenges of each region while addressing the structural problems on a national level. The Bloc Québécois worked hard to speak on behalf of and give a voice to those who are affected by gun violence and ineffective public safety policies. We have finally taken an important step. The airsoft associations in my riding and across Quebec and Canada will be happy to hear that the political parties unanimously decided to remove the clause banning airsoft guns. That amendment was adopted, which means that airsoft associations can continue to practise their sport without any of the previous restrictions. Airsoft associations should be pleased about that decision, which will allow them to continue their activities in accordance with the new regulations. When the folks from the airsoft associations contacted me, I also wondered about how these provisions would affect biathletes. From what I understand, the use of guns in a sport context is generally dealt with in a distinct set of regulations or protocols, so the acquisition, possession and use of guns in a biathlon context is dealt with separately from the firearms framework. I am here for the hunters in my region, those at the other end of Highway 117. They expressed serious concerns following the hastily made announcement regarding the amendments proposed by the government in the fall of 2022. I was able to learn what a Rover and an AR‑15 are. Thanks to the Bloc's interventions, however, some problematic items were rectified. First, the infamous list, which was a source of confusion, has been removed. This was a list of firearms that were considered assault weapons. It created uncertainty. That is what had the worst impact on hunters. When this list was removed, a major source of their concern disappeared. In addition, the specific reference to “hunting rifle” in the prospective definition of assault weapons was also removed. This reference could have led to confusion and unwarranted restrictions for hunters who legitimately use hunting rifles for their activities. Thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois, this reference was removed, which addressed hunters' concerns. In particular, I want to acknowledge my friend Danny Lalancette, who brought this to my attention. The Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs said it was satisfied with the changes made by the government following the Bloc's interventions. These adjustments corrected the initial gaps and ambiguities and thus ensured that hunters could continue their activities while complying with the new regulations, without unwarranted restrictions. I want to acknowledge the leadership they showed in committee. Let us talk about the red flag and yellow flag system, which is included in the bill. Red flag measures allow any person to apply to a judge for an order to immediately remove firearms from an individual who may be a danger to themselves or others. These orders can also be used to remove firearms from an individual who may make them available to a person who poses a threat. However, domestic violence victim advocacy groups are concerned about this measure and indicated that they would like to see it removed. These groups are concerned that it would relieve the police of their responsibility and put the burden of safety on victims. Despite the Bloc Québécois's opposition to this section, the NDP and the Liberal Party voted to retain it. I therefore call for greater vigilance at the slightest indication that this solution is losing its effectiveness. Under the yellow flag measure, an individual's firearms licence could be temporarily suspended if information comes to light that calls into question their eligibility for that licence. This suspension would prevent the acquisition of new firearms, but would not allow the seizure of firearms already owned by the individual. However, these firearms could not be used, for example, at a shooting range during the suspension. A new measure in this version of Bill C‑21 is the immediate revocation of the firearms licence of any individual who becomes subject to a protection order or who has engaged in an act of domestic violence or stalking. This measure seeks to enhance safety by quickly taking firearms licences away from such individuals in order to reduce the risk of gun violence in situations of domestic violence. In closing, the drafting of this bill has once again proven how important it is to take a holistic approach and to have a sound understanding of the issues underlying gun violence. The legislative and regulatory review would not have had the same scope had the committee and my colleague not considered the social, economic and cultural factors that contribute to this problem. It is clearly essential that we listen to and understand different perspectives and take into account local realities. Consultation with stakeholders, including public safety experts, advocacy groups, law enforcement agencies and members of civil society, is key to developing effective solutions separate from the passage of the bill. I am thinking about access to mental health care, crime prevention, education, support for victims and many other things. By working together, a balanced approach can be achieved that protects communities while respecting the rights of individuals and supporting legitimate sporting activities. Developing firearms laws and regulations needs be an ongoing process. It must be adaptive and inclusive in order to meet the changing needs of society and keep everyone safe. In closing, I want to say that my thoughts go out to all the victims of gun violence. I am thinking in particular of the victims of Polytechnique and the PolyRemembers group, as well as the victims of the Quebec City mosque.
1504 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 11:02:55 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned he is from a rural area in Quebec. I am from a rural area in Nova Scotia. We have a lot of individuals who competitively sport shoot with handguns. One of the things I have said on the record is that I hope the government can address, in regulatory measures in the days ahead, a pathway for competitive sport shooters. Right now the definition is Olympic shooters, which is relatively actually quite narrow in the country. It would exclude, I would presume, shooters in his riding and mine. I am wondering if he has heard about that from IPSC or other members in his riding and what his response would be to that tonight.
120 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 11:03:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who I was expecting on the soccer pitch this evening, but who was not there. I hope he will be there next time, because we played together last year. That said, I am pleased that he is addressing the subject of shooting clubs and sport shooting. I am a hunter. I have a hunting licence. It is a family activity that I wanted to do. In my case, it is more about having a glass of wine in the evening and spending time in the bush than being an experienced hunter, but I went through the process. What is interesting is that I had never used a firearm. I was able to obtain my possession permit. I went through the process with the help of Pierre Auger, a retired police officer who looks after the shooting range in Rouyn‑Noranda I was pleased, although not surprised, to see the supervision provided at the shooting range. This practice is strictly controlled. It is very rigorous. There is training, and safety is very important. Why are these places important? If people practice shooting in these places, then we would be able to identify people who might have suspicious behaviour. Maybe we should make it mandatory for people to spend time at these shooting ranges to reinforce the safety aspect. These places are essential in our communities, especially the rural ones. If we think about other measures for improving the use of firearms or licensing, maybe guidance and education by peers at shooting ranges might be an approach worth exploring.
264 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 11:05:16 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I will ask the member from the Bloc a question that I asked one of his colleagues during the discussion at committee. As I heard from them, some of the initiatives the Liberal government is forwarding are similar to those that have already been implemented in Quebec. However, when I asked if there was data that supports the idea that any of these measures would result in a reduction of violent crime, specifically violent gun crime, I did not get an answer. I would ask that simple question. Certainly, the evidence that I have heard from my constituents and from experts across the country is that this legislation will do nothing to address the real problem, which is criminals, who are not following the rules to begin with, and will target law-abiding firearms owners like hunters, farmers and sports shooters.
143 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 11:06:29 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, if people say that the Parti Québécois is the party of the regions, it has to do with interventions such as those. We are ensuring that hunters and farmers are not covered by this—
41 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 11:06:43 p.m.
  • Watch
I just want to make a small aside about the name of the party mentioned. It is not the Parti Québécois. As far as I know, that party does not sit in the House. I just wanted to remind the hon. member of that.
48 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border