44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2023 11:00AM
- May/8/23 12:46:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to mention one thing for the hon. parliamentary secretary about the motion so it is on the record. It is a small complaint, but it matters. It is the reference to how we will go forward over the next number of days. It refers to independent members but no where does it refer to Green Party members. I do not imagine that the intent of the motion is to leave us out, but I just draw attention to the fact that we are not independents, and I do have amendments before the committee.
My specific question for the parliamentary secretary is about what this bill would do now to deal with the SKS semi-automatic rifles that have a 7.62 mm dimension. The rifle, with an extended magazine, was the type of gun used on June 28, 2022, in what was not actually a bank robbery in my riding. It was an attempt to kill as many policemen as possible as fast as possible. Thank God none of the police officers who were wounded, many seriously, died, but six officers were in hospital following this devastating attack, some for months.
I wonder if we can get these weapons off the street. Many innocent people are killed and wounded, including police officers.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 3:13:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this weekend, Liberals overwhelmingly supported a policy motion that is very similar to and consistent with Motion No. 76, put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. This is extremely positive news, but the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that it would, despite the support of his party, never be a priority for the Prime Minister, because, he says, “The fact is, there is no consensus”.
This motion calls for a national, non-partisan citizens' assembly to find that consensus.
Is “consensus” defined by the Prime Minister as including himself, and otherwise, there is no consensus?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 3:32:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is a very significant petition dealing with an issue that is very topical. It is that Canadian corporations based in Canada contribute to human rights abuses and environmental damage in other countries. The people who protest these abuses and defend their rights are often harassed, attacked or killed, and in this group are particularly indigenous peoples, women and marginalized groups who are under threat.
We know the process set up for observing responsible enterprise of Canadian corporations lacks the tools to actually ensure Canadian corporations do support human rights and operate in ways that make us proud.
These concerned citizens ask that the companies be prevented from adverse human right impacts and environmental damage through global operations and supply chains; require companies to do their due diligence, and Canada lacks compared to other countries in requiring companies to do due diligence; assess how their actions may be contributing to human rights abuses; have meaningful consequences for companies that fail to exercise this due diligence; and establish a legal right for people who have been harmed by Canadian corporations operating outside of Canada to seek justice in Canadian courts.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 10:13:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question from my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, because it is a key issue. This government and the Liberals are not the only one who have made decisions that go against Canada's interests and are in China's interest.
As my colleague said, Stephen Harper signed a legally binding agreement with the People's Republic of China. This was the result of a vote in Parliament, not at all. It was a decision made by Mr. Harper's cabinet. It gave the People's Republic of China the right to secretly sue the federal and provincial levels of government in Canada and the governments of indigenous peoples, and there is no way out of that agreement until 34 years after Mr. Harper's decision.
I am so concerned about the decisions of the Liberal and Conservative governments. We must have a non-partisan approach to this threat.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 11:04:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's willingness to talk about the other countries we need to look into.
I remember the first time I heard in the media, and others around the room may recall this as well, that Hillary Clinton's people were making the claim that Russian interference had something to do with the leaks that damaged her campaign. I thought they were really reaching there, and I wondered if it was at all plausible. Now we know that not only was it plausible, but it happened. We have seen interference from a number of actors in particular.
I voted for the motion for a full inquiry, for shutting down the police stations and for moving forward. I just want to share that I did not want us to restrict ourselves only to the question of the moment of Chinese interference in our elections but, instead, make sure that we looked at the broader question. This question is how we ensure that we are on top of everything we could do to protect Canadian democracy from foreign interference.
Does the hon. member have any comments on that?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
