SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 85

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 9, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/9/22
Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)
  • Jun/9/22 2:38:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec has had a carbon market with California since 2014. The Minister of the Environment actually went to California yesterday, but not to announce that he would be forcing polluting sectors to join the carbon market. No, he announced that the federal government will be creating its own pseudomarket, a system with no emissions cap that allows companies to exchange the right to pollute without actually reducing greenhouse gases. In a GHG cap and trade system, the “cap” part is not optional. Why is the minister creating a licence to pollute?
95 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/9/22
Ms. Kristina Michaud
  • Jun/9/22 9:58:45 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, but it brings another question to my mind. How did these gun owners get them in the first place? Did they get them legally or illegally? That question needs to be asked. Of course, it does not help that there are so many guns already out there. The fact that people have guns in their homes without any real restrictions, that they do not keep them out of the hands of children or prevent children from having easy access to them, certainly does not help. I do agree that Bill C‑21 has a noble objective: to take as many handguns as possible out of circulation. This will certainly have a positive effect, since an individual who does not already have a licence will no longer be able to obtain a handgun. We will wait to see the figures, but we hope this will have a positive impact, because we are working together to improve this bill.
165 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 85 - Jun/9/22
Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)
  • Jun/9/22 10:55:45 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, my colleague briefly touched on why this bill is important for cases relating to intimate partner violence. As the status of women critic, I am participating in the committee's study of a report on what goes on in certain intimate partner violence situations. The goal is to figure out how to reduce intimate partner violence. One aspect of the bill I want to focus on is the immediate revocation of a licence for anyone under a protection order or involved in an act of intimate partner violence or harassment. That is obviously essential, but we cannot just tackle physical violence. How can we expand the scope to emotional violence in order to include what is known as coercive control, a much broader concept of intimate partner violence? That is what I am getting from this measure. Is that what the member is getting as well?
148 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border