44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2023 02:00PM
- May/17/23 4:39:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by some fantastic Canadians. They are concerned that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, which allowed parole ineligibility periods to be applied consecutively for mass murderers. As a result, some of Canada's most heinous mass murderers will have their parole ineligibility period reduced. They will now be eligible to apply for parole after only 25 years.
Therefore, the signatories of the petition are looking for the government to use the notwithstanding clause to uphold the previous law that was in place and that the Supreme Court struck down.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 7:01:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am feeling emotional as I rise today to thank and congratulate my colleague, the Bloc Québécois public safety critic.
As she said herself, it was her first time taking part in the clause-by-clause consideration of such an important bill. One day, when she is a grandmother, she will look back and see that she built a better bill because she was able to make suggestions throughout the process, instead of simply criticizing and being partisan. It is a reflection of how the Bloc Québécois works. She was able to propose improvements for the common good.
Tonight, I am proud to be seated beside her, and I am proud of her work. I am old. I have white hair. However, my colleague is quite young and has a great career ahead of her. This evening, I am proud to congratulate her on behalf of the Bloc Québécois for all the excellent work she has done.
Now that we are nearing the end of the process, I would like to ask her a question. If she had one thing to say to the rookies who are going to join us, what would she say? She can speak from the heart. Where do we start with a clause-by-clause analysis?
226 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 7:33:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the interpreters, who do an incredible job every day.
I was saying that my colleague and I work very well together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is too bad he was not there for the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, there still seems to be a problem with the interpretation.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 7:35:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the interpreters and technicians again. I think it is a plot to make me repeat for a third time that I really appreciate my NDP colleague. I really enjoyed working with him at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is too bad he was not there for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑21.
There is one thing I am having a hard time understanding. It is the red-flag measure, which the government presented as a measure that could help protect women who are victims of intimate partner violence. Ultimately, what we heard from dozens of women's groups from across the country is that they fear this measure will shift the onus from law enforcement to victims. Even some lawyers testified that it could increase the workload of the courts, which are already busy enough at this time. Everyone agreed that it was not a good measure, and that it would not do anything more to help women who are victims of intimate partner violence.
The NDP is usually in favour of such positions. Like the Bloc Québécois, they want to do more to protect women. However, while the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party voted against these government clauses, the NDP supported them.
I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to explain why, because I still do not understand this.
247 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 8:03:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his work in committee. As chair, he did a very good job during the clause-by-clause study in committee.
It is interesting to hear his opinion this evening. Usually, committee chairs have a duty to stay neutral. That being said, he had to take a position at some point during the clause-by-clause study. One of his colleagues abstained from voting on an extremely important amendment and there were as many votes in favour of the amendment as there were against the amendment. He had to take a position, that of his government, and vote to prevent making the handgun freeze completely useless as the Conservative Party and the NDP tried to do.
While there was grumbling about the amendments the government tabled in November, and there was pressure from all the opposition parties and civil society in general, I know that there was pressure coming from within the Liberal caucus to withdraw these amendments.
I would like the member to explain to us how this happened on the government side with the tabling and withdrawal of amendments on assault weapons, which were rather controversial.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 8:04:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be working with the member on the committee, and I would like to assure her that clause-by-clause is not always this bad and does not always take six months.
On the amendments we brought forward in the fall, it became clear, after much debate and much consultation on an ongoing basis, that they needed work, so they needed to be withdrawn and another approach taken. That is what we did. We responded to what people were saying. We listened and we took action so we could move this forward in a positive way.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 11:32:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the member for Kings—Hants can be forgiven. It is getting rather late.
I appreciate how he used his 20 minutes tonight. I think he approached this discussion from a very honest place, reflecting on his personal views and the views of his constituents. He is the chair of the agriculture committee, and I enjoy a good working relationship with him.
When this bill was going through clause-by-clause, it was a real pleasure for me to tune in to see the member for Kings—Hants voicing vociferous support for our amendment to the bill that was going to expand it to allow for IPSC. I congratulate him for taking that stand. I have had exchanges in this chamber on that with the member for Outremont, who took me a peg lower because I dared to publicly support that. We know from IPSC shooters, and I have gone to competitions, that some of the top-level athletes in that field can shoot 50,000 rounds of ammunition every single year. That leads to their firearms breaking down, and they need replacing.
Can he expand on how we need to be a bit more reasonable in this place in understanding that, while not everyone might like the same hobby, we should at least try to find a way to respect something that so many people put so many hours into practising. They try to perfect their craft and are simply asking for their sport, which is something they really enjoy doing, to be left alone.
261 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
