SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 149

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 30, 2023 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 149 - Jan/30/23
Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)
  • Jan/30/23 2:09:29 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been eight years since the Prime Minister took office, and his soft-on-crime policies have unleashed a crime wave in Canada. The government has made life easier for violent criminals by providing easy access to bail and repealing mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. As a result, violent crime has gone up 32% in the past year, and gang-related killings have gone up by 92% since 2015. Furthermore, Liberals have failed to stop the flow of illegal firearms across the border. As a consequence, five police officers have tragically lost their lives this past fall in the line of duty. Our communities feel less safe, and the government is making it worse. Despite their dismal record, Liberals recently initiated a ban on hunting rifles and shotguns, making thousands of these firearms illegal. Hunters, farmers and target shooters are not the problem; Liberals are the problem. This Liberal made-in-Canada crime wave must stop. Only a Conservative government will do what is necessary to keep violent criminals off our streets.
176 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 149 - Jan/30/23
Mr. Peter Julian
  • Jan/30/23 3:42:27 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Happy new year, Mr. Speaker. Today, I would like to raise a point of order regarding an amendment to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). As stated on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” The amendment in question, G-4, would amend clause 1 of Bill C-21, and the New Democrats have been clear in expressing our opposition to this amendment. The amendment seems to target those who use guns for hunting, for protecting farm animals from predators and for supporting safety in the backcountry. What is more, we have all heard from indigenous people that the amendments would not respect treaty rights nor the duty to consult. Bill C-21 was originally intended to limit the number of handguns on our streets. Before the amendment was introduced, there was every reason to believe that Bill C-21 was on track to passing through this House before Christmas, but instead, the amendment was introduced at the eleventh hour with no ability to question witnesses about its impacts. It is a more than 200-page amendment to what was originally a 44-page bill. In our view, that constitutes an abuse of process. We are not asking the Speaker to judge the merits of the amendment. Instead, we are bringing forward a very important procedural point. We believe, contrary to the committee's findings, that this amendment seeks to expand the scope of the bill as established at second reading since it addresses a new idea that was not considered at second reading. The amendment is out of scope because the original Bill C-21 was meant to implement a handgun freeze. This amendment would drastically expand the definition of “prohibited firearm” in the Criminal Code to cover all sorts of long guns, including those commonly used for hunting and farming and by indigenous communities. This House never had a chance to debate this measure at second reading. When the amendment was moved on November 22, 2022, the committee chair deemed that it was not beyond the scope of the bill. This decision was appealed, and the committee voted in favour of the committee chair's decision. However, as we saw in the very clear Speaker's ruling on November 16, 2022, regarding amendments to Bill C-228, the ultimate decision on the scope of a bill rests with the House itself: “The Chair would like to remind members that the scope of a bill is not determined by its sponsor, by the government or even by the committee considering it, but by the House itself when it adopts the bill at second reading.” In this situation, the committee adopted amendments that the Chair ultimately struck from the bill during consideration at report stage, because you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the amendments were beyond the scope of Bill C‑228 as passed by the House at second reading. Although we realize that the Speaker usually does not rule on a matter that is still being debated in committee, we believe that in this particular situation your opinion is necessary and important. The committee has been stuck for weeks debating this amendment, which is, in our opinion, out of the scope of the bill. It is possible that you would rule the amendment out of order at report stage, which would make the hours of debate at committee completely unnecessary. It would be in the interest of all parliamentarians to avoid the waste of time and energy spent debating an amendment that would ultimately be removed from the bill.
644 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border