44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 21, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/21/22 3:45:27 p.m.
- Watch
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 3:45:27 p.m.
- Watch
It being 3:45 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at third reading of Bill C-11.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 3:45:27 p.m.
- Watch
I will leave it on the desk.
All joking aside, again, I thank everyone for their kind words. It has been a fun six months and it has been an incredible session. Our work is not over, but I know we will all finish strong because that is the kind of people we are.
I thank everyone here, including all members of Parliament, all of the support staff and the Speaker. We are getting ready to rise and go back to our ridings, so I wish all members a wonderful summer as we head back and work for our constituents.
Godspeed to everyone in the days ahead and God bless Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 3:47:01 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of amendment to House]
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
50 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
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-21. I am going to try to deal with a number of complex issues in a short amount of time and hope it works.
It relates to Bill C-21, and that is the use of firearms. I want to comment on some of the discussion during question period about the Portapique shootings. I think it is important to reflect on what I take away from the news media at this time, when I have a moment to say it. There is no chance of interrupting question period to put it into perspective.
As a Nova Scotian originally, I was devastated, as we all were, by the shootings at Portapique. The RCMP officer who was killed, Heidi Stevenson, was a friend of mine and I know her mother well.
It was awful to watch what happened. We will see what the Mass Casualty Commission produces as a result, but it is pretty clear to me, and I want to speak clearly to this, that the RCMP in Nova Scotia failed the public badly. I know a commission is looking at this, but the RCMP had information that was not shared. It failed to put out a warning and 22 people were killed. I know this inquiry is very important to all the families who lost loved ones.
There appears to me to have been an uncalled-for assumption by some members in question period, who put into question the integrity of the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister's Office. I am not an apologist for the Liberals, but I thought that was not what the evidence revealed. When I look at the CBC reports of what they found out, it appears to me that in the aftermath of the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP was all too quick to try to obscure facts from the public, rather than reveal them.
It appears to me that the RCMP commissioner, Brenda Lucki, provided more transparency and provided real information. If anyone in PMO instructed her anything, it seems to me that it would have been to tell everybody what has happened and just be transparent. I am very concerned that we let any false rumours or assumptions to besmirch the reputations of others, including Brenda Lucki, be spread in this place.
It appears to me, as in a number of other shooting incidents, that sometimes the police get it wrong. They did not move in Uvalde, Texas, when they should have, to save those children. There is a common denominator that I discern, which is that when the RCMP is slow to move or the police are slow to move, it is because the people they would have to deal with are heavily armed. I do not find the police slow to move against unarmed protesters. I do not find the police slow to move against indigenous people. However, they delay when they are at risk for their own safety, all too often. It is not always, but all too often.
In the case of the Nova Scotia shooter, we know his name. I do not want to repeat it, because of the crimes he committed. However, he was well known to the RCMP and in the early hours after the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP, not the commissioner, put out false statements that he was not known to them. He was known personally to them. They had warnings about him.
This goes to make the bridge and the connection to Bill C-21. This goes to a number of the provisions of Bill C-21 that, if Bill C-21 had been law at that time, could have saved lives. The neighbours of the multiple shooter in Nova Scotia, and we can just call him the evil dentist for the time being, reported him to the RCMP on numerous occasions, but no action was taken. Neighbours were so frightened of him that they literally sold their dream home and moved away, yet nothing was done to even conduct a search of the property or even to inquire why he is buying a car that looks just like an RCMP vehicle. Why does he dress up like an RCMP officer? These details were known in the community, and a number of them were reported to law enforcement authorities.
Could this bill have made a difference? I think it could have, but only if the RCMP or local police are prepared to use the information that comes to them. That is why one of the provisions in this bill that I particularly like is the ability to seek an ex parte motion on the strength of concerns from people who are concerned that some person may be threatening others, not just with firearms, by the way, but with crossbows or with explosive substances. This is really important. This is found under “Application for emergency prohibition order” in clause 4 of this bill, which would amend section 110 of the Firearms Act.
It is really important that we recognize what an ex parte order is. That means that people can go to the court without notifying the person they are scared of that they are going to court, and there can be an emergency search and seizure without a warrant. This violates every instinct of my being, searches without warrants, because I am a civil liberties lawyer, but there is a history of violence by people in the community, people we know.
There is a lot about this law that I hope we will have time to study thoroughly, and I want to speak to that. There are the red flag and yellow flag provisions, the ability to go to a judge without fear of retribution from someone who is well armed or who has crossbows. It may be in cases, as we know all too frequently, of intimate partner violence. It may be in cases of the random and reckless killing of others, as in the case of Portapique or the desperately sad case of Lionel Desmond, who killed his wife and mother and kids. He was, of course, suffering from PTSD from his service in our armed forces and did not get the help he needed, even though he had gone to a hospital the day before. There are many and varied circumstances when the presence of firearms in a home makes the difference between life and death, and where the provisions in Bill C-21 would indeed, I hope, save lives.
I want to turn to a process question at this point: Why rush this bill? I am very concerned that we just invoked time allocation on a bill that we had only had before us for debate for three hours. This bill is complex. It has many moving parts. The government itself has changed its views on key aspects of this bill between its version last year, which was also Bill C-21, and its version this year, which is the current Bill C-21. The Liberals changed their minds, and wisely, on the question of voluntary versus mandatory buyback. They changed their minds, wisely, on the question of any jurisdiction other than the federal government regulating guns. Those were wise choices, and this bill has changed in that way.
Bills get better when they are studied. Any attempt to achieve consensus will improve a bill. A decision on the government side that the Conservatives are only going to obstruct and delay and filibuster is entirely a justified conclusion, given conduct so far in this Parliament, but that does not excuse shortening the time for debate, shortening the time for study and shortening the time to try to find consensus in this place, which is possible.
I want to put forward some of the things that would help achieve consensus. One is to observe the rules, which are our rules. It does not take changing the Standing Orders to ban the practice of reading a speech. How does that connect? When a whip or a House leader in a party knows that they can rally however many MPs they have, like cannon fodder, and give them a speech to deliver in 10 minutes, they can clog up the works of this place with people giving speeches.
If the rules prohibited members from reading a speech and required them to express their thoughts in their own words, there would be fewer members rising to speak during a debate on a bill.
We need to get control of this so that we can have real debate among fewer MPs, because fewer MPs would be able to stand up and speak without a written speech.
The next thing we need to do is consider how many days we sit in this place. We have this panic this time of year, every year, as though a disaster will strike if we do not adjourn on a day that is set. We could sit for more days. We sit for far fewer days than the U.S. Congress, and even fewer days than the British Parliament.
I voted against time allocation, because this is a complicated bill and we should take the time it needs, to respect each other and come up with the best bill.
1562 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her thoughts and reflections on this.
I have a question regarding her criticism of the requirement for time allocation. I know she spends a lot of time in the House and is certainly aware of what goes on in this House. I am sure she is aware of the fact that on numerous occasions the Conservatives have been continually using any tactics possible to literally make the government grind to a halt. They do not even pick one or two issues that will be the hills they die on, but seem to just be willing to do anything at any point to stop debate.
Given the member's comments and concerns with respect to time allocation, I wonder if she can reflect on that.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have seen that. Sometime before the 2019 election, I remember we had a quick move by a Conservative, who was very pleased with it, to hoist a motion on a private member's bill to declare a Canadian day to acknowledge our Spanish heritage, and he managed to have a mandatory debate that lasted five hours. People were running out of things to say. They were saying that they liked sombreros and they made gazpacho, but there was nothing to say. Everybody was in support of the motion. It was clearly a delay tactic.
We have to work harder to preserve our basic core principles and values in this place, which are that every MP should participate in reasonable debate, within which we respect each other. It is not just the Conservatives; in another Parliament it will be somebody else. We cannot allow the worst conduct of any particular Parliament to drive lesser rights for members of Parliament in the next Parliament.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think there are some really germane facts about the Mass Casualty Commission that people need to understand, since the member brought it up. Certainly, that action was perpetrated by illegal guns, not by a legal gun owner, so I think that is important to point out.
The other important thing to point out here is that what we need to talk about in this House is so important that we should all get a chance to do it. The time allocation that the government has brought with respect to this bill is absolutely ridiculous. When we continuously see ministers misleading the House with information, it is very clear. We now know that we cannot trust anything they say, so how can we expect to move these bills forward? That is the point of debating this at the current time.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say this to the member for Cumberland—Colchester, in whose riding these killings took place. The Mass Casualty Commission has revealed some things and we have to wait for its final conclusions. I think it was a mistake not to require all of the RCMP officers who participated in the events to be part of the inquiry and to testify. I know some of the families have even withdrawn participation because they are so disappointed with the path of the inquiry. What I will say is this. Whether the guns were legal or illegal, many neighbours tried to tell the RCMP they were scared of this man and nothing was done.
Bill C-21 will help deal with that.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I take issue with the same things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands does: the time-wasting tactics and the reduced time for debate prevent us from getting to the bottom of things.
I would like to know whether my colleague was as bothered as I was when we were called to vote twice instead of once to decide which Conservative member would speak. I cannot get over it and I would like to hear her thoughts on that.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.
I think that closure, or time allocation, is wrong and undermines our democracy. We need to take the time to really examine the issues.
Bill C-21 is important. I think I support it, but it raises a number of issues on which I may want to see amendments, particularly regarding law-abiding citizens who use recreational firearms.
We must make every effort to come up with solutions together. That is why I oppose closure motions.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms. I am proud to support such crucial legislation, which is going to make a real difference in keeping communities like mine safe and free of gun violence.
Gun violence is on the rise in Canada. It presents a serious and significant threat to communities across the country, in the streets and at home. Every six days, a woman is killed by an intimate partner. This is not just an urban statistic but a rural one. Women in rural Canada are particularly vulnerable to homicide by firearms. When it comes to domestic violence, shotguns and rifles, usually legally obtained and commonly kept in rural homes, have been called “weapons of choice” by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. In violent homes, these guns are the tools of choice to intimidate and control women living in rural Canada.
The data is clear. Since 2009, violent offences involving guns have increased by 81% and 47% of Canadians say that gun violence poses a serious threat to their community.
There are going to be those who argue that if we regulate guns, we simply penalize law-abiding citizens and gangsters will still get their guns. That is simply not true. Most Canadian mass shooters did not have criminal records and got their guns legally. Let us recap: Fredericton, 2018, no criminal record, four dead; Danforth, 2018, no criminal record, two dead, multiple wounded; Quebec City, no criminal record, six dead, multiple wounded; and the Moncton shooter, 2014, three dead, multiple wounded.
Let us not pretend it is only gangs and illegal weapons that are the problem, because that is simply not true. Here is a sobering stat. The reality is that 75% of gun fatalities have nothing to do with gangs or criminals. It is because they are suicides.
When it comes to kids, let us look at facts. According to the Canadian Medical Association, one child in Ontario is hurt by a gun or firearm every single day, with 7% of those kids ending up dead.
This morning I woke up to an email from Susan, who is from my riding. She wrote me the following email: “Good morning MP Taleeb. Strongly recommend Bill C-21 to be given Royal Assent and pass in Parliament during this session. My brother was shot in his living room several years ago while writing a letter to me that was never completed.”
Susan is a real human being whose family has suffered the real consequences of firearms. This is why we must act. Gun violence affects people in all of our communities, whether rural, urban or suburban and all socio-economic backgrounds. We need to do more. We need to do more to protect our kids, our parents, our neighbours and everyone in between.
Every Canadian deserves to live without fear of violence. We know that inaction on gun control has real consequences. This is why, through Bill C-21, we are taking a national approach to protecting our communities from the harmful effects of gun violence.
Let us be clear about a couple of things. The bill is focused on putting a stop to tragedies, preventing gun crime and keeping our neighbours safe. It is a complex issue that requires a multi-faceted approach. That is exactly what we are doing through Bill C-21, through robust, direct action in key areas that puts in place a diverse strategy on this issue from all sides.
Action on handguns cannot wait. We are putting a national freeze on handguns to address the alarming increase in gun violence to allow a rapid and effective response. This means that, going forward, no one would be able to sell, purchase or transfer handguns by individuals within Canada or bring newly acquired firearms into the country. I want to stress this, because people are going to make a point about this. Legal gun owners would continue to possess and use their registered handguns, and could sell or transfer their registered handguns to exempted individuals or businesses.
The other key pillar of the bill centres on addressing the tragic trend between gender-based violence and guns. We see this link in our workplaces, communities, at home and online. This trend continues to persist. Protecting the safety and security of survivors of violence, particularly intimate partner violence and gender-based violence, is paramount. Victims need to feel heard and supported when they reach out for help.
That's why we are introducing red flag and yellow flag laws and expanding licence revocation. Through red flag laws, survivors can make an application to the courts for an emergency weapons prohibition order to immediately remove firearms for a period of up to 30 days from an individual who poses a danger to themselves or others.
It is also essential as a preventive approach, to ensure that victims of domestic and gender-based violence feel safe, to ensure protective intervention for those experiencing a mental health crisis, and to be able to intervene in cases where people are showing warning signs of violence.
Through yellow flag provisions, an individual's licence can be suspended for up to 30 days.
Combatting gun trafficking and smuggling, and strengthening law enforcement to tackle gun violence are key aspects of our multi-faceted solution. With Bill C-21, we are working to increase the maximum penalties for firearms offences from 10 to 14 years in prison to keep our communities safe.
Taking the necessary steps to ensure we eradicate gun violence across our country will help build safer communities for generations to come. Through Bill C-21, we would ensure kids feel safer walking home from school, women will feel safer when dealing with violent partners, and racialized communities will worry less about being murdered while praying. That is what this bill would do.
This is legislation that might well have prevented the Quebec mosque shooting, the Danforth shooting, and the Moncton and Fredericton shootings. For the victims of gun violence, thoughts and prayers cannot be the best we have, but preventing the next attack by making it harder and harder for firearms to enter our communities would ensure the deaths of those who have passed would not be in vain.
1066 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, coming from a rural riding, I feel like I am probably a bit more well versed in what rural people think about guns than someone who comes from an urban riding.
That being said, I would like to update the House on what the CMA policy says around the prevention of firearm violence. What it says is that they recommend guidance on the prevention of firearm violence, education for the safe handling of firearms and the regulation of firearms, while also identifying areas for further research. Recommendations include creating evidence-based education programs to prevent firearm violence, improving access to publicly funded mental health services and requiring strong record-keeping for firearms retailers, distributors and private sellers to help prevent the illegal acquisition and use of firearms.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is striking the member quotes the CMA and he quotes the importance of being able to register and regulate firearms, yet it is curious his party has consistently opposed any efforts to register firearms. It has opposed firearms registries and pretty much everything, so I am glad he is looking at the research put out by medical professionals, who have said that, in fact, gun violence kills or harms one child every single day in the province of Ontario. That should mean something.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understood. Perhaps something was lost in the interpretation. I do not know, but I am going to ask my colleague to clarify what he said.
He is telling us that it is all right if Bill C‑21 does not address street violence, because statistics show that there are more gun deaths related to suicide than to street violence.
Is the member seriously comparing those two concepts?
Why did he give such a frivolous example?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would not call it a futile example, because it is at once important for us to recognize that guns kill people, whether it is in the commission of crimes or when people are taking their own lives. Our obligation to protect Canadians is to make sure that we make it as difficult as possible for crimes to be committed and for people to use guns to take their own lives. We have an obligation to protect one another and to take care of our communities. This and mental health are all important elements that go into protecting society, but taking guns out of people's hands where violence can occur is a critical component and responsibility of the House.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with much that was stated today, and for all those reasons, we need to see action happening around this issue. We know that 99,000 Canadians were victims of intimate partner violence, predominantly composed of women. Of those, in 500 incidents of intimate partner violence in that same year, 2018, firearms were present.
What does the member propose to tackle the increasing rates of intimate partner violence using guns?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
