44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 22, 2022 02:00PM
- Jun/22/22 4:56:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the member is absolutely incorrect, as indeed Kingston is the best riding in the country, he is now providing his own personal opinion on a petition. During petitions, members are only supposed to present a petition, not provide their own commentary on it.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments, specifically with respect to firearms. I know that there has been a lot said about this bill and how it would impact Canadians. I know that there have been some unfortunate comments that, in my opinion, do not exactly reflect what is in this bill, so I will use the opportunity today to try to highlight exactly what this bill would do.
First and foremost, this bill would establish a national freeze on handguns. Individuals would no longer have the ability to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns. This is extremely reasonable in today's society with what we are seeing going on not just outside of our borders in the United States, but also as we have actually witnessed here in Canada. We know that for the vast majority of those who are looking to harm individuals and utilize a gun for an illegal purpose, the weapon of choice is a handgun, and it is extremely important to ensure that there is a restricted ability for people to access these.
There would be exemptions, and there are exemptions in the bill, that ensure that those who require a weapon for security or policing purposes, etc., would obviously be exempt for those reasons. They would be able to make purchases for those reasons.
We also know that a certain number of people out there enjoy using a handgun for sport: for shooting at a range or in various ways. They utilize that. Although it might be more challenging to access a handgun in order to continue using it for that purpose, this bill certainly makes it known that this is not about attempting to regulate those individuals or prevent those individuals from utilizing a handgun for that purpose. In many cases, for sport, those individuals would not be impacted.
This bill would also establish red flag and yellow flag laws to expand the licence revocation process when it is deemed necessary in the right context.
The bill would also combat firearms smuggling and trafficking, notably by increasing the maximum penalty of imprisonment for indictable weapons offences. This is extremely important to reference because this, along with the mandatory minimum sentences bill that the House has also been debating in the past few weeks, is a talking point for Conservatives, with respect to minimum sentences being dropped primarily because the Supreme Court has determined that to be a necessity. Because those are being dropped, the Conservatives are suggesting that the government is being more lenient on those who commit certain crimes that would have otherwise been, and currently would be, regulated by mandatory minimums.
It is actually the opposite, because although the government does feel that when it comes to sentencing, judges should be the ones who are determining what sentencing is, we also recognize that for some of these indictable offences, particularly those around weapons, we would be giving greater sentencing capacity to change that maximum sentence from 10 years to 14 years. Indeed, when judges find it appropriate to increase the sentence even further, they would be given more capacity to do that.
Of course, as indicated by other people who spoke before me, there is a provision within this bill to prohibit mid-velocity replica airguns. The reasons for that are quite notable, despite the fact that we have heard some conversation about the fact that different sporting activities might from time to time require these airguns.
It is very important to point out that this bill, at least in my opinion, is not about targeting law-abiding gun owners.
Most of my uncles in particular either own hunting lodges, where they hunt with their friends and families, or have been participating as hunters for generations, quite frankly. On my wife's side of the family, my father-in-law grew up on a hunting and fishing lodge. I am quite familiar with the needs and requirements of hunters specifically, and I must admit I have never heard one of them talk about the need to use a handgun or an AR-15 for the purpose of hunting.
What we are really trying to do here is curb the use of guns for illegal purposes: for the shootings we have seen in our country and continue to witness in the United States to the south of us. That is what the issue really is here.
I know the default, and quite often used, excuse from the other side of the House is to ask why we are not going after those who are trying to bring the guns across the border, because a significant number of guns that are used in criminal activity are coming from across the border.
811 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is the default reaction we hear from the Conservatives and continue to, literally as I speak right now. I am being heckled by them.
If one believes nothing else about—
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if the member wants, I would be happy to accept a unanimous consent motion to double my question time to 10 minutes, and then I could make sure I get to all the questions the Conservatives want to ask me. I would be more than happy to do that.
What I was getting at is that if one does not believe in anything else, they should just look at the data that is out there. The countries that have the stricter gun laws are the countries that have fewer shootings. If one considers no other information than that plain and simple fact, one is left trying to decide whether the trade-off is deemed acceptable. Do we want stricter gun laws that result in fewer gun fatalities and homicides in particular? The data also shows there is a significant decrease in police officers who are killed in the line of duty by somebody who uses a gun on them.
For me, that trade-off is pretty simple. Do we have to make things more restrictive in order to save more lives? All we have to do is look to the countries that have been quite successful in this. Other people have mentioned them throughout the debate today. The trade-off is quite simple for me. I am more interested in saving lives than preserving individuals' opportunity to hold on to and carry a firearm.
I respect the fact that there are others on the other side of the House whose tolerance for that risk is different from mine. It is just a reality that we have differing opinions on this. However, I will stand firmly in my position that I do not see the need for handguns to be on our streets or to be held on to, or that people need to have a handgun. I do not personally see the reason for it.
As I said, all those in my family and extended family who I know have hunted for generations, have never once, during our own individual discussions about this issue around the dinner table, talked about the need for a handgun. Yes, there are concerns from time to time about weapons, and in particular those used for hunting. I can respect that, but I just do not think handguns fall into that category, nor has any hunter I have ever spoken with agreed with that sentiment.
I will leave it at that. If the member wants to put forward a unanimous consent motion to get me to answer twice as many questions, I would be happy to do that to make sure I can answer all those Conservative questions out there.
447 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will address the last part first. I think what puts me offside with my family members more is the rhetoric that comes from the lobbying groups and, quite frankly, to be honest, the Conservatives. It is not until I have the opportunity to correct that information with my family members that they then seem to be much more at ease.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, the member can disagree with me, but I am saying how my family interacts with me, and that is just the reality of the situation.
In the first part of his question, he was asking about how it would impact people. I guess it really comes down to what they determine to be an impact on somebody. Would it have an impact to tell people that we do not think it is appropriate to be carrying a firearm? If that negatively impacts them because they have a passion for doing that, then I guess it would impact them. However, I do not think it would impact those who are using a firearm for the purpose of hunting, in particular, which is the example I have been using.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am always open to hearing ideas about how a bill can be amended to make it better. I have participated in paintballing myself. I am quite familiar with what the guns look like. The ones that are specifically referenced in the bill are replicas. A typical paintball gun used for recreational purposes outside of intense sport have a big barrel for the paintballs. It is quite clear that it is not a replica, at least in my opinion, but I would love to explore this more at committee.
As to the first point when the member talked about the border, I would say that we have done two significant things since coming into power. The first is that we recommitted and put money into securing our borders by investing in the CBSA officers the previous Conservative government had eliminated. The second is that this bill would change the maximum sentence for those indictable offences from 10 years to 14 years. We are putting a stricter sentence on those who choose to participate in that criminal activity.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did not write the bill, so I do not know exactly what the consultative process has been up to this point, but what I do know is that the next stage of this bill is in committee, where the committee could do a lot of that consultative process and perhaps come up with some solutions and ideas. There is the idea her colleague mentioned in the House earlier about making it a requirement that the tip of the gun be painted a certain colour. I would argue that a nice, bright red would be better than orange, as suggested by her colleague earlier, but, nonetheless, I am sure there are opportunities out there to help improve the bill.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:14:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 12 a.m.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:18:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is starting to sound more and more like our Conservative colleagues across the way, not so much in terms of concern about inflation but more in the rhetoric and manufactured outrage, in my opinion, that he seems to be displaying.
I apologize to him that he has asked this question five times. I hope he listens carefully, because my answers will be extremely direct. I will not talk about child care, I will not list countries and I will not talk about payments coming back to people from the price on pollution, despite the fact that they are all extremely important programs.
Indeed, I will talk about affordability being top of mind for our government, just as it is for most Canadians these days. We understand that Canadians are worried about inflation and that they are rightly asking what their government is going to do about it.
The current high inflation is a global phenomenon, driven in large part by the lasting impacts of a once-in-a-generation pandemic and amplified by China's ongoing COVID-zero policies and Russia's illegal invasion in Ukraine. These are not excuses; I am putting out the facts so that the member clearly understands where the problem originated.
As inflation is a global and multi-faceted issue, our government understands the importance of taking targeted measures here at home to help Canadians make ends meet. How have we supported Canadians, and what are we going to do to continue to support them? To answer the member's question directly, this was top of mind when the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance highlighted, just last week, the five real and tangible steps we are taking to help get inflation under control and make life more affordable.
First, the government recognizes the central role of the Bank of Canada. For more than three decades, it has been the bank's responsibility to tackle inflation here in Canada, and we will let the bank continue to do this important work.
Second, as we made clear in budget 2021, we will also address the shortage of workers in this country. Our plan to do so is part of a set of measures that Janet Yellen, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, has described as modern supply-side economics.
Third, our government also understands that fiscal restraint is key in combatting inflation. Our government is determined to see our debt-to-GDP ratio continue to decline and our deficits continue to be reduced.
Fourth, our government is also committed to making sure that there are enough good middle-class jobs for Canadians. By doing so, we will continue to see our economy be prosperous, as we know that the middle class is so critical in ensuring that prosperity.
Last, we will help Canadians directly with the challenge of affordability, in issue the member has raised. Through the affordability plan, we will provide just under $9 billion in new support for Canadians. Our plan includes enhancements to the Canada worker benefit; a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75; a $500 payment this year to nearly one million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing; lower child care fees for families across the country; and benefits indexed to inflation, including the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
This is how we will make life more affordable for Canadian families while controlling expenditures and maintaining Canada's AAA credit rating.
595 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:23:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is what they can count on.
They can count on the Canada workers benefit, a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75 and a $500 additional payment this year to nearly one million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing. Families across the country can rely on lower child care fees. They can rely on the fact that there will be indexation to inflation for the Canada child benefit, the GST credit, the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.
I regret that the member seems to think that these policies are being rehashed and re-laid out and that he does not see the tangible benefits these policies have for Canadians. I am sure that if he goes back and talks to Canadians who are receiving these benefits and explains to them how the changes will further impact their lives, they would see the benefit of them.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:37:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there, but I will start by saying that the only reason why correctional institutions do not supply regular dairy fresh milk to inmates is because Stephen Harper's government actually completely removed that and substituted it with powdered milk several years into its mandate. That is the reason why inmates are no longer drinking fresh milk, but that is beside the point of why we are here today.
I want to take the opportunity to address some of the things that I heard today from the member, and indeed, leading into today's question and to the various different ones. I will start by reiterating that Corrections Canada does not currently possess any goats for use in a penitentiary agricultural program. It also does not have any contracts or agreements with any third parties, either domestic or international, for the sale of goat milk.
I will remind the member opposite that the operations at the Joyceville and Collins Bay institutions, at this time, are currently focused on full implementation of dairy cow operations. I am very proud to note that the construction of the dairy cattle barn at the Joyceville institution, which the member referenced, commenced in April. Once completed, the barn will facilitate Correctional Services Canada fully implementing its dairy cattle operation.
When it comes to operations and programming, Correctional Services Canada has engaged, and will continue to engage, with community members and stakeholders. I would also encourage interested parliamentarians to visit these sites, if they have not already done so, to see for themselves first-hand what correctional interventions are offered to promote rehabilitation.
On that note, I am proud to speak to the successes associated with the offender employability program, which includes the penitentiary agricultural program. Through this CORCAN program, offenders can participate in various types of interventions and services, including on-the-job vocational and essential skills training.
While this allows them to acquire skills related to a specific industry, what they learn is also transferable to a variety of types of employment. This is something that the former Conservative government completely neglected to acknowledge when it decided to close those programs.
Finding and maintaining employment in the community is key to recidivism. CSC has research documents dating back even earlier than 2014 that note a connection between employment and positive reintegration results. I will note that the reports cited by the hon. member, which have subsequently been supported in other research since that time, noted the following: that inmates who participated in CORCAN employment programs while incarcerated were more likely to be granted parole, that they were more likely to get a job in the community, and that they were more likely to have a reduced rate of returning to prison.
These points note that the earlier release on day parole and increased likelihood to obtain employment leads to a reduction in offenders repeating and re-entering into correctional programs.
Finally, despite the claims that have been made, I would like to emphasize that when it comes to the operations of these farms, private industry does not benefit financially from the involvement of inmates. Revenues generated from these operations are reinvested directly into the offender employment and employability program.
542 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/22/22 10:42:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that sentiment is reciprocated to the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. I know that in the House it quite often seems like we are continually sparring, but the member and I just had a great opportunity to have a very civilized personal conversation prior to this debate, despite the fact that we might be at odds on this particular issue.
I obviously do not have a direct answer to the member's question, but I also do not understand how this demand is coming forward through this question and answer period. If the member wants to put forward a policy objective of the government, he should do so through a motion or various other forms where he can do that. In the meantime, I do not think that it is indicative of the government in any regard to say that it can guarantee one way or another that it will do one thing or another. If the member is interested in changing the policy of the government, there are ways to do that, but I do not believe that this back-and-forth is the proper place.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
