44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 21, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/21/22 10:03:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 17 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member from the Green Party. As I have said before, no one likes time allocation, but it is a tool that is necessary when we cannot negotiate and have co-operation.
We must remember that the mandate was not just given to this government in terms of co-operating. The mandate to co-operate was given to all political entities in the chamber. All it takes is any one opposition party to prevent any piece of legislation from passing, which will force the government to bring in time allocation or to concede the legislation and never see it pass.
My question to my colleague is this. Would he not agree that, at the end of the day, this is important? This is what Canadians want to see, which is the type of legislation that would have an impact on our lives. That is why we have to push it—
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Bloc members are going to be voting in favour of the legislation, yet I am a bit surprised about the most recent vote. Surely to goodness they recognize that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support the legislation and that it is the Conservatives' intent to see the bill never go to committee, yet the Bloc seems quite content to allow the Conservative Party to filibuster it at second reading. I was surprised that the Bloc is not recognizing the value of having time allocations, given the track record of the Conservative Party.
To that end, my question to the member is this: To what degree does the Bloc party want to see this legislation ultimately passed? She made reference to the fact that it is an important issue, which we know it is. If it goes to committee, she indicated there could be some possible amendments. Would she like to see the legislation ultimately passed before the end of this year?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to follow up on the question that was just posed to the member, is it the position of the Bloc Party that there should be no restrictions on airsoft guns?
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I suspect the member was curious about quorum because there were no Conservatives, but I will not say anything further on that.
To the member, I want to go back to air guns, which look like and appear to be real guns, although they are replicas. What is the Bloc's position on that? Does it believe air guns that replicate real guns are a danger to society?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would apologize for making note there were no Conservatives in the chamber.
15 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, unreservedly, I apologize.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Humber River—Black Creek.
If we go back to 2009 and compared it with today, what we will find is that there has been a substantial increase of 81% in violent offences involving guns in a relatively short period of time. We should all be concerned about that. This piece of legislation would continue to move us forward. It is an issue the government has been familiar with for a number of years. In fact, one only needs to take a look at the other pieces of legislation we have brought forward and our budgetary motions and measures to deal with the issue of gun violence.
Canadians as a whole are concerned. It has been estimated that getting close to 50% are concerned about gun violence and what impact it is having on our communities. As a government, not only have we taken a look at legislative measures, which we are talking about today in Bill C-21, but we have also taken other actions, actions that have led to restrictions on some types of assault weapons and actions such as supporting Canada's border control.
We often hear members of all political stripes talk about the smuggling of weapons into Canada from the United States. That is something we take very seriously, unlike Stephen Harper, who cut back on agents at our border.
An hon. member: Blame Harper.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, yes, let us assert blame where it is to be asserted in this situation. We are a government that has supported our border agents, recognizing how important that is.
There is a different mentality in the United States versus Canada. Consider the number of mass shootings with more than one victim. They take place virtually every day in the United States. In fact, some of the numbers shared with me indicate that there are well over 200 cases of mass shootings in the United States already where there have been two or more victims. It is a totally different mentality.
One thing that makes us feel good about being here in Canada is that we understand and appreciate the importance of having safe communities and the role, which we see day in and day out in the United States, that weapons have in our communities.
We are talking about issues such as gang activities, and literally tens of millions of dollars, going into over $200 million, have been invested through budgetary measures to deal with gangs. This is not to mention the other additional resources that the government, through infrastructure projects and through working with different levels of government, has been able to put into place, with programs aimed at reducing crime in our communities, especially with an emphasis on gun-related crimes.
Bill C-21, I believe, is legislation that has a wide level of support from the public from coast to coast to coast. We might hear a great deal about gun crimes in some of our major cities, but I do not believe it is just limited to our major cities.
That is one of the reasons that the approach the government is taking today in Bill C-21 is the right approach. We see that in the support the legislation is receiving. The New Democrats are supporting the legislation. I understand that the Green Party is supporting the legislation. The Bloc party is supporting the legislation too. However, it is no surprise that the Conservative Party is not supporting the legislation.
That is why I posed a question to my friends in the Bloc earlier today. Their first speaker talked about how important it is that we get this legislation passed. She has been waiting for it for a number of years already, yet as we have witnessed over the last number of months, the Conservative Party, the official opposition, has taken the approach that legislation is not to pass inside the House of Commons as much as possible, and it will put up barriers to prevent that from taking place.
At times, the Bloc members have already recognized this, because there have been times when they supported time allocation. However, today, the Bloc party did not support the need for it, knowing full well, as members will find in the next number of hours of debate, that Conservative after Conservative will stand up in opposition to Bill C-21. As they have demonstrated on other pieces of legislation, the Conservatives will continue not only to put up speakers but to also move amendments.
An hon. member: That's our job.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, as the member opposite says, that is their job as opposition. That is right. To a certain degree, though, there is also an obligation for members of the official opposition to actually work as parliamentarians and recognize that if they do not want time allocation on all things, they have to at least recognize that eventually legislation has to pass and go to the next stage.
A member from the Green Party posed a question earlier today. If there were a higher sense of co-operation in recognizing that members cannot indefinitely hold up legislation—
An hon. member: Yes, they can.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, no, members cannot, because if they do that for every piece of legislation, including budgetary measures, the government will not be able to do anything. As we have recognized in the last mandate given to us, we have to work with opposition members to do the things we want to do, as we are doing.
Fortunately, there is at least one opposition party that has recognized the value of co-operation, contributing to the debate and trying to effect change. That is in fact what Bill C-21 would do. It would provide a safer community for all of us. We talk about the issue of yellow flag and red flag laws through this legislation. Once passed, this will have an immediate impact. It is an aspect of the legislation that many advocates and different stakeholders recognize the value of.
Having a freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns has been called for for a while now. It has taken the government, through consultations, a great deal of effort to make sure that we get the legislation right. It is not about killing the air gun industry. It is recognizing that air guns that replicate real guns do have an impact. A law enforcement officer in an awkward or difficult position has no way of telling what is real and what is not because of the resemblance.
This legislation has been well thought out. There has been a great deal of consultation, and I believe this is reflected by the type of support, minus the Conservative Party, that the legislation is seeing. I would like to think that passing it to committee would enable Canadians to contribute more directly and listen to what the experts say, because I am sure it will be back come fall time for an additional lengthy debate.
1188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the government, virtually from day one, has been taking budgetary and legislative actions to make our communities safer, and we will continue to do so. Bill C-21 is yet another legislative measure that would have a profoundly positive impact, and I can cite it specifically. From the selling and purchasing of handguns to the idea of the yellow flag and red flag laws, these are issues that will provide a higher sense of security in our communities. The Conservatives will have to justify to these communities why they oppose that.
In terms of their overall behaviour with regard to all legislation, even legislation they support, they will go out of their way to filibuster in order to fill time and force the government to—
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, I sat almost exactly where the member opposite is sitting in the third party, and even in the third party, I made it very clear that at times there is a need to bring in time allocation. When we do not have any sense of co-operation coming from opposition parties, we have to bring in time allocation as a tool. It is unfortunate.
It would be wonderful if there was more of a consensus on the programming that takes place so that it allows for legislation or opposition days. We see that today on private members' bills, we see that today on opposition day motions and we see that through emergency debates. There are limitations. It means that for the bills that are really controversial, we can maybe have more debate time, and for the bills that are not as controversial that everyone supports, maybe we do not need as much debate time. We need to recognize that there is only so much time in a day, in a week and in a year, and that is something the Conservatives fail to recognize.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we realized that the Stephen Harper government did in fact make serious cuts, and as a result, it weakened our borders. We have invested heavily in borders virtually from the very beginning, recognizing that illegal weapons are a very serious issue. We will continue to look at ways to minimize illegal weapons coming into Canada.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:
(a) on the day the House begins debate on the second reading motion of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication), no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment or when no member rises to speak during the debate, whichever is earlier, the bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed on division; and
(b) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to undertake a study on the subject matter of Bill C-28 when the business of the House resumes in September 2022, during the course of this study the Minister of Justice be invited to appear as a witness, and the committee report its findings to the House no later than Friday, December 16, 2022.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 4:01:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote, please.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think we have to be somewhat cautious when we say, “We do not like this bill, and here are all the alternatives”, then list off a bunch of other issues. I am just suggesting that if we were to apply that principle, we could really be off topic on a wide variety of things, so this is more of a caution.
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, having had the choice to continue to listen to Conservatives or to myself, I have chosen myself. I hope members do not mind.
I want to defend the member for Provencher. There is a valid argument to be made that the centre of Canada is in fact in the riding of Provencher, just east of the city of Winnipeg. If members do not believe me or the member for Provencher, take a drive. It is beautiful country and they will see a lot of sweet things. It is the promised land of sorts, and I am sure the member for Provencher would concur with that, and there is a marker that clearly identifies that it is the centre of Canada.
I want to take this opportunity to stand up and appreciate the fact that my colleague and friend has brought forward this legislation. As members will attempt to bring up other issues, I would suggest that names really do matter. There is no absolute guarantee that the next election will have new names or, in fact, a guarantee of boundaries. This is something we suspect because of agreements that are in place, but there is no absolute guarantee. I know, through the campaigning that I have done over many different elections, that people often ask about the name of a riding because it does matter. If something is included or excluded, it is often an issue that is raised with local members, whether at a provincial level or a national level.
Therefore, the member who has agreed to bring forward this legislation, not as part of the draw that MPs are talking about but rather as a Senate bill that has been brought forward by the member, still continues to have her draw at some point in time, but recognizes that here is an opportunity to get a name change. I would hope that members opposite would recognize that what we are talking about is private members' hour. It is not an opposition day motion or a government piece of legislation. It is someone who has identified an issue as a member and has seen an effective way of seeking a change in the name. It is not taking away from the member's own personal draw, if I can put it that way, but rather it is something that has come through the Senate.
I listened to a member from the Bloc, who indicated, as did the member from the New Democratic Party, the importance of the name for that particular region. I might not necessarily be overly familiar with that region of the country, but I do know that people take it very seriously in regard to, as I pointed out earlier, what is in and what is out and why it has a specific name. I thought it was quite nice to hear the member make reference to a local mayor, who has passed, as someone who has raised the issue, and there are others, no doubt.
I want to take the opportunity to applaud the member in recognizing something that is important to her and her constituents. I do not believe it takes away from other issues that could be debated. I have seen many debates, in particular opposition motions, that I would suggest are questionable at the best of times. In fact, in listening to the debate, because of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, we have seen ample other issues raised during this debate of a wide variety, whether it is an economic or a social matter. In the most recent debate a member was able to reflect on his own constituency and talked about using the terms the “promised land” and “milk and honey” and I thought he presented a pretty sound argument.
Many of my colleagues, in particular those from the province of British Columbia, are very proud of the mountains. When we start to look at our rural communities, we see a great deal of beauty.
I represent Winnipeg North, an area that I am very proud to represent. It is a working-class community, an area that is very reflective of Canadian society and how we have ultimately evolved. I look at the many contributions of our Ukrainian heritage community and our Jewish community. About 100 years ago, they came in and built the CP track, or the great divide, if I can put it that way, between Winnipeg North and Winnipeg Centre.
Our nation is built not only by nature but by people, and there are many aspects to Winnipeg North. There is natural beauty. We have the Red River, which flows through it. At times, it can pose a challenge because of flood-related issues, but let there be no doubt that our rivers draw people to the riverbanks. The impact, whether at Kildonan Park or The Forks, is quite significant.
We can take a look at our industrial zones in Winnipeg North that contribute immensely to the development not only of Winnipeg North but of our country. We can take a look at our long-haul truck drivers, or the backbone of our health care system, our health care workers, like our nurses. There is no shortage of labour coming out of Winnipeg North to support our country. There is also the production of widgets and consumption of honey and milk.
No matter where members of Parliament represent, whether it is urban, rural, in the mountains, in the flatlands of the Prairies, at the Great Lakes, on the cliffs of the Atlantic Ocean or up north, we all have a sense of pride in the communities we represent. We all want our riding names to reflect what we believe our constituents want as a name. It does matter. It is taken into consideration in communities, both large and small.
The people who live in Garden Grove are very proud of the fact that they have a wonderful, beautiful and unique community. I can talk about the Point Douglas area or we can go to the far north end of Winnipeg North where we have the newer community of Amber Trails, which is growing rapidly. Whether it is the traditional old end of the north end, Point Douglas, Garden Grove, Meadows West, Tyndall Park, Amber Trails, The Maples or those I have not listed, they are all a very important part of the riding of Winnipeg North.
Winnipeg North seems to be a name that is widely accepted, as it has been since the sixties. I am not 100% sure on that, but it has been around for a long time. I will not be requesting a name change. I am quite happy with the name of Winnipeg North. However, I do believe that in situations where there is a need for change and a member is afforded the opportunity to bring in that change, then why not? That is what I would ultimately say.
At one point, I think we were anticipating that the debate was going to collapse. As I pointed out at the beginning, we had a number of Conservatives wanting to speak to the bill, so I figured I too would share in the glory of Winnipeg North and recognize the value and hard work that members put in and the sense of pride they have in the constituencies they represent.
With those few words, I hope that all members at least recognize what the member is trying to do in a straightforward way in reflecting the will of her constituents, and support the legislation.
1265 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I can understand and appreciate the member is not going to be supporting the legislation. The Conservative Party has made that very clear. It is the only political party that will not be supporting this legislation.
More things are involved, if the member is aware, within this legislation. For example, the idea of red flags and yellow flags and ensuring there is a higher sense of safety and security for situations of domestic abuse. Does the member see any aspect of this legislation he could actually support?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a wide variety of issues. I am not allowed the time to address them all in the form of a question, but I do have a very basic question that I have posed before.
I am glad to see that Bloc members are going to be supporting this legislation. However, the degree to which they want to see the legislation pass and get to committee did surprise me earlier.
We know that the Conservatives flat out object to the legislation before us. They are going to battle the legislation. The only reason the bill will pass to committee is because the NDP agreed to have time allocated so that at least it could get out of second-reading stage.
Could the member explain why, if the Bloc members believe in handgun bans, they believed that it was not necessary to try to get the bill rushed to the committee stage? Otherwise, who knows when it would even get there?
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I checked with our desk, and it does not seem to be affecting us. Maybe the member could be more specific. It might be one or two people with bad connections who are trying to connect. It does not seem to be universal.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to there being no Internet in the parliamentary precinct. I have my laptop open, and there is Internet access. I checked with the backroom, where we have many members who are participating, and I believe it is not universal. There might be some issues with some members, and we should continue with the debate.
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 8:54:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, based on some consultation that has been conducted, I suspect that, if you were canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to adjourn for the day.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
