SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 199 - May/17/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 199 - May/17/23

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/17/23 10:19:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, it is true that the Conservatives supported certain amendments at committee. We helped improve a terrible bill to make it a slightly less terrible bill. The member cites red flag laws. I note that section 117 of the Criminal Code already provides law enforcement with the authority to seize firearms when there is a safety issue, without a warrant. That aspect of the bill, really, is not an improvement, and it does not take away from the fact that the entire concept of the bill is misplaced. It targets law-abiding firearms owners, people who are not going out committing crimes. They are the targets of Bill C-21. The government should really be going after the gangs and criminals who are going out and committing crimes with guns.

131 words

Context: House Hansard - 199 - May/17/23

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/17/23 10:21:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, some 20 women's organizations came before committee and said that the bill was problematic. Specifically, the so-called red flag provisions of the bill were problematic by virtue of the fact that section 117 of the Criminal Code already gives law enforcement the tools necessary to seize weapons when a woman is in danger. What the Liberals are providing is that, instead of law enforcement doing its job, a woman in danger would now be required to go to court. Women's organizations have said this is burdensome, puts women at risk and does not do the job.

101 words

Context: House Hansard - 199 - May/17/23

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

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