SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 94 - Jun/22/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/22/22 4:59:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

13 words

Stand
Ask

Jun/22/22 4:59:19 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 444—

Questioner: Adam Chambers

With regard to expenditures on public relations or media training, or similar type of services for ministers or their offices, including the Office of the Prime Minister, since January 1, 2019: what are the details of each such expenditure, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) amount, (iii) vendor, (iv) individual providing the training, (v) summary of services provided, including the type of training, (vi) person who received the training, (vii) date of the training?

Question No. 562—

Questioner: Arnold Viersen

With regard to the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, since January 2020: what are the details of any contracts or partnerships with non-Canadian entities or states to conduct operations within Canada, including the (i) start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work, (v) value of the contract?

Question No. 564—

Questioner: Dan Muys

With regard to government expenditures on Cisco and Cisco Systems products or services since January 1, 2020, including those obtained or purchased through a third party vendor: what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) date, (ii) amount or value, (iii) vendor, (iv) description of goods or services, including the volume, (v) file number, (vi) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced, competitive bid, etc.)?

Question No. 566—

Questioner: Tako Van

With regard to government programs conducting surveillance or gathering information from Canadians through their phones or other mobile devices, including programs involving anonymized data: what are the details of these programs since January 1, 2020, including, for each, (i) the name of program, (ii) the date the program began, if it began after January 1, 2020, (iii) the description of the data being collected, (iv) the purpose of the program, (v) the description of how the data is collected, (vi) the department or agency responsible for overseeing the program, (vii) whether or not the privacy commissioner was consulted before the program was implemented, (viii) the concerns raised by the privacy commissioner, (ix) how each concern was addressed, (x) the end date of the program, (xi) the number of Canadians who had their data tracked?

353 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/22/22 4:59:29 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/22/22 4:59:41 p.m.
Watch

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. member for Thornhill to rise and make a brief intervention.

25 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Jun/22/22 4:59:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country are experiencing an unprecedented backlog in the processing of passport applications. Wait times are exceeding the normal standards, and the government's inability to meet demands is affecting Canadians' ability to obtain the necessary documentation to travel. They are being forced to take time away from work, to wait in lineups for hours and hours, sometimes starting at 3 a.m. The government's remedy to the current situation is, frankly, inadequate. This is an important matter requiring urgent consideration pursuant to Standing Order 52, and as a result I am requesting an emergency debate.

101 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/22/22 5:00:19 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Thornhill for her intervention. However, I am not satisfied that her request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

28 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/22/22 5:00:55 p.m.
Watch

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

19 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Jun/22/22 5:00:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand and defend the people of Cumberland—Colchester and of Portapique specifically, who we know are being revictimized by the actions of some members of this House in their spreading of disinformation and their attempts to discount the written information given by members of the RCMP in testimony to the Mass Casualty Commission. There is concern in Nova Scotia with respect to the proceedings of the Mass Casualty Commission at this time, and the actions and disinformation spread in this House continue to undermine the actual workings of that committee. Today we need to address the things that we have seen in this House.

112 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/22/22 5:01:35 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for his intervention. However, the Chair is not satisfied that his request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

31 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard

Jun/22/22 5:01:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there was notice of a request for an emergency debate from the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. Unfortunately, he had to leave the House, so I am asking for unanimous consent for an emergency debate on the inflation and affordability crisis in this country. We found out today that inflation numbers are at 7.7%, the highest in a generation, almost 40 years. I am requesting unanimous consent for an emergency debate on that.

79 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/22/22 5:02:16 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

18 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Jun/22/22 5:02:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of privilege raised by the official opposition member from Calgary Centre with regard to the technical difficulties we had in the middle of debate in the House on the evening of June 21. This clearly demonstrates that the hybrid system of Parliament has its shortcomings when technical difficulties occur. The hybrid system is not infallible and brings with it certain risks with regard to parliamentary rights and privileges. It is therefore clear that we need to carefully weigh the pros and cons before deciding whether to make this way of doing things in the House permanent in order to deal with exceptional circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. With the voting app, there is always a plan B with the possibility of voting by Zoom if there is a problem. However, there is no plan B when there are issues with secure broadcasting on the House network. Yesterday, there was a request for unanimous consent once there was a known issue with secure broadcasting in the House. The member for Calgary Centre was unable to hear the question because of problems with the House network. The hon. member clearly demonstrated the limitations of a hybrid Parliament, and we therefore ask the Chair to consider the hon. member's request.

224 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/22/22 5:03:59 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

8 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Jun/22/22 5:04:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-21, the NDP-Liberals' most recent attempt to scapegoat law-abiding firearms owners and to trick the average Canadian into believing they are trying to improve public safety while doing absolutely no such thing. If we looks at the balance of the government's agenda on public safety and justice, we see that Liberals seem content to undermine both of these departments and the essential institutions that support them. This is being done in order to virtue signal and play petty politics to the detriment of our entire society. While this is deeply disappointing, it is hardly surprising. The government is light on substantive policy solutions and heavy on press conferences and so-called alternative facts. Today additional details came to light about interference by the government and the Prime Minister in the investigation of the tragic mass murders in Nova Scotia in an attempt to create a narrative that would fit their political agenda. This is important, because it speaks to the foundation on which substantial parts of the Liberals' firearms policy rests, including parts of Bill C-21, the bill we are currently debating. The Halifax Examiner reported yesterday that “RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki 'made a promise' to [the] Public Safety Minister...[at the time] and the Prime Minister’s Office to leverage the mass murders of April 18/19, 2020 to get a gun control law passed.” To be clear, that former public safety minister is now the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness. The article makes it clear that the commissioner was being pressured by the Prime Minister's Office and the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness to ensure that information was released that would help them politically, to the detriment of the ongoing investigation and potentially placing it in jeopardy. As the Minister of Emergency Preparedness is a former police chief, we would expect better from him. However, maybe this is how he has always operated. This is a pattern of behaviour with this Prime Minister: He puts himself first, the Liberal Party second, his donors and insider friends third, and then if there is time and the chance for a really good photo op, he might try to do something that actually helps a few Canadians. This is an example of the first two. The Prime Minister was willing to interfere with the ongoing police investigation in order to try to leverage a political edge. This used to be unimaginable, but given the Prime Minister's SNC-Lavalin track record, it is totally in line with his character. The way someone does one thing is the way that person does everything. I want to read part of this article, because it is important and deserves to be heard in this place. Nova Scotia Superintendent Darren Campbell wrote about a meeting he had with Commissioner Lucki, stating: The Commissioner was obviously upset. She did not raise her voice but her choice of words was indicative of her overall dissatisfaction with our work. The Commissioner accused us (me) of disrespecting her by not following her instructions. I was and remain confused over this. The Commissioner said she told Comms to tell us at H Division to include specific info about the firearms used by [the killer]….However I said we couldn’t because to do so would jeopardize ongoing efforts to advance the U.S. side of the case as well as the Canadian components of the investigation. Those are facts and I stand by them. Those are the words of Superintendent Campbell. I will add that every police officer carries with them an evidence notebook. I, as a former law enforcement officer back in the 1990s, still have today my evidence notebooks in case I need to recall facts about events that happened while I was on duty. The article continues: Campbell noted that Lucki went on at length and said she was “sad and disappointed” that he had not provided these details to the media. Campbell continued: The Commissioner said she had promised the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister’s Office that the RCMP (we) would release this information. I tried to explain there was no intent to disrespect anyone however we could not release this information at this time. The Commissioner then said that we didn’t understand, that this was tied to pending gun control legislation that would make officers and the public safer. She was very upset and at one point Deputy Commissioner (Brian) Brennan tried to get things calmed down but that had little effect. Some in the room were reduced to tears and emotional over this belittling reprimand. The article makes it clear that this was not the only way that the government interfered with this investigation and the release of information, by pressuring the commissioner to break agreed-upon protocols. The article also attributes a quote to Lia Scanlan, communications director for the RCMP, that says, “The commissioner releases a body count that we don’t even have. She went out and did that. It was all political pressure. That is 100% the minister and the Prime Minister. And we have a Commissioner that does not push back.” Those are the words of RCMP communications director Scanlan. It is deeply concerning that the commissioner would not push back against the government on this request, but it is completely and totally unacceptable that she should ever have had to. I can only surmise that she is all too familiar with what happens to women who speak truth to power to the Prime Minister and his underlings. This is the foundation on which Bill C-21 was constructed: political pressure and interference with the RCMP, misinformation about the perpetrators of gun violence and naked political opportunism. The bill was also announced on the heels of an American tragedy, deliberately importing American political discourse into domestic Canadian policies. The Prime Minister seems to be confused about the impact of Canadian legislation on American society, of which there is virtually none. Unless he is announcing his plan to run for president of the United States, he should start trying to address the issues that Canadians face, not American issues here in Canada. The firearms regimes in our two countries, Canada and the United States, are completely different. It has been made clear that the mass murderer from Texas would not be able to get a gun in Canada. In most U.S. states, a 21-year-old American with no convictions could purchase a firearm and, in pretty much every state, carry it. In about half of them, they could carry concealed with limited regulations. That is not the reality in Canada. I am a law-abiding firearms owner. In Canada, people need to take a firearms safety course, apply for a licence and submit to a background check, not only on the initial application but on every reapplication every five years, in which the RCMP can contact former conjugal partners. Then, they wait for that information to come back for a few months, and maybe then can go and purchase a firearm and abide by stringent safe storage and transport laws. That is the reality in Canada. Every day, my ability to continue to own or possess firearms is checked against the Canadian Police Information Centre’s database to ensure that I am still legally and lawfully able to. If only the government of the day would spend that much time following up on people who are prohibited from possessing or acquiring firearms, spend that much time policing our borders and making sure that the people on our borders had the tools and equipment that they needed, and spend that much time in this chamber actually focused on criminals who commit crimes: they shoot guns in our urban centres, in our communities and in our rural areas and have no respect for the law and no respect for human life. That is not the case with the 2.1 million law-abiding Canadian firearms owners. In fact, the data clearly says the opposite. If we are going to be harmed by somebody in the country with a firearm, the vast majority of that harm is coming from somebody who is not licensed to have the firearm in the first place. Every gun in this country is illegal unless it is in the possession of somebody licensed to have it. We have the best firearms laws in the world, and I will put that up against the record of any other country. It is shameful that the government is importing U.S. politics into Canada to sell misinformation to the voters of this country and disenfranchise law-abiding Canadian citizens.

1477 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

Jun/22/22 5:14:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a comment before I get to the question. There are times that we will disagree, regardless of what side of the House we sit on, but the member opposite turned his comments to try and slander and disingenuously try to harm the reputation of a former police officer, namely now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. I would ask the member to withdraw his statement about the member's character and apologize to the House for doing so.

83 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Jun/22/22 5:14:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I actually do genuinely appreciate my colleague. We have spent lots of time working together in a constructive fashion on the fisheries committee, and I believe him to be an individual of solid character. I would simply suggest something to him, given the fact and the track record of the government that he has been supporting here all the while. If he wants to provide some solace to the House, I would humbly ask him to go and have a tête-à-tête with the Minister of Emergency Preparedness to make darn sure, before he asks somebody to apologize in the House, that he has all of the actual facts.

116 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/22/22 5:15:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, there are a lot of good points in this bill. However, the weapons involved in all these incidents that keep happening in Montreal are weapons that have crossed the border illegally. It turns out that people are buying these weapons, and the people buying them are members of criminal groups. Police services need to have the tools to take action against these groups. That is why, for weeks, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the Minister of Public Safety to create a registry of criminal organizations, much like the one we have for terrorist organizations, so that we can target these people and take action against them. The Montreal police have confirmed that 95% of the handguns used recently in these incidents in Montreal were illegal. Can my colleague tell me why the minister has, so far, refused to establish such a registry?

155 words

All Topics

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Jun/22/22 5:16:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent idea and worthy of debate in the House. I look forward to my colleague in the Bloc Québécois tabling a private member's bill, or somebody in the House tabling a bill, to establish just such a thing. As I said in my comments, I am checked as a law-abiding citizen every day to ensure that I am able to continue to legally possess firearms in the this country, yet we do not have a system in this country that would keep track of people who are prohibited from having firearms because of their affiliation and association with criminal gang activities and prior convictions. This government, through Bill C-71, now Bill C-5 before the House, would make it easier for criminals to be out on bail, to be out on parole and to have zero time served in jail. At the same time, the only people it would make life difficult for, when it comes to firearms, are law-abiding firearms owners in this country. It is shameful.

181 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Jun/22/22 5:17:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague for Red Deer—Lacombe about airsoft guns. I have heard from a number of constituents who enjoy playing airsoft, and they feel that the proposed restrictions go too far and would make it hard for them to participate in their sport. At the same time, Canada has very few regulations for airsoft guns. Other countries around the world have different solutions. Some of them require that the barrels be painted a bright colour such as pink or yellow. Orange might be a nice colour. I wonder, if not the regulations in the bill, is there a reasonable regulation that the member would support?

112 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Jun/22/22 5:18:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I represent constituents who also participate in airsoft activities. It is a small but important industry to those who take great enjoyment in it and have fun with it. It is great for exercise and a number of reasons. The fact that the Liberal government is actually not even differentiating between a toy gun and an actual firearm shows me just how little Liberals actually know or understand about actual firearms. I would welcome any changes to this legislation that would extract those who legitimately want to use airsoft. If there are any mechanisms that are reasonable and make sense so that people who just want to go out and have a little bit of fun can continue to do so, they would have my support.

128 words