44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss as to how to proceed. I think the Speaker has made it clear that the line of argument infringes upon certain rules of the House. I appreciate that the member already wrote his speech. As somebody who does not use notes, and I know that the member knows the content of the bill very well, I just encourage him to get out of his notes and speak to the content of the bill. In this way, he will not be infringing upon the rules of the House or upon your recent ruling.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 6:47:07 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard is rising on the same point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, you have made a ruling, and members have been given wide latitude by Chair occupants in the past to go back into their speech that they have prewritten, where they have made annotations for themselves. The member is referring, obviously, to a court case. He has a point that he is trying to make. If that other member would just let him finish his point, I am sure he will carry on to the rest of the business that he wants to do.
I hear members laughing across the way, but they are given the same latitude to speak to bills. We all bring notes into the House to make a speech.
You have made a ruling, Mr. Speaker, so we should just carry on with the debate on Bill C-21.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 6:47:42 p.m.
- Watch
I believe the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is rising on the same point of order.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am not laughing. What I would say is that if I wrote a speech before entering the House that infringed upon a ruling of the Speaker or rules of the House, I would expect that, it would not be okay for me to if I breach those rules simply because I wrote it down before coming into the House. I would be expected to adapt to rulings of the Speaker on the fly.
The member has a prewritten speech, but if it is infringing upon the ruling of the Speaker, simply having written it down beforehand does not mean that he is allowed to continue.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 6:48:17 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard is rising on the same point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, with apologies for prolonging this debate, again, members have been given wide latitude in the House to refer to past votes that have been taken in the House. Member after member has been in the House and has done so year after year. It has never been an issue until right now, when that particular member has a disagreement with the contents of a speech that another member is trying to give in the House.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 6:48:42 p.m.
- Watch
Let me just say it this way: There can be no quorum calls. We can talk about quorum on other days, in other court cases, if it has been, of course, quoted somewhere else.
I am going to provide a little bit of latitude on this one to listen to the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. However, we are staying away from the quorum call for this evening.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the requirements of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and of section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, respecting the use of both the English and French languages in the records and Journals of the House of Parliament of Canada, are mandatory and must be obeyed. Accordingly, the House can no longer depart from its own code of procedure when considering procedure entrenched in the Constitution.
On page 295 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, in reference to the 1985 case, Maingot lists those constitutional requirements regarding parliamentary procedure that must be obeyed. In that list, he includes section 48, which deals with the quorum of the House of Commons.
Since the special order restricts the calling of quorum, and since calling of quorum is the only means by which quorum can be established during a sitting, in essence, the special order waives the Constitutional requirement of quorum. As the Speaker and their predecessors have reminded this House countless times, and I am sure the Supreme Court justices will agree, one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly.
In the event that Bill C-21—
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 6:50:22 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is rising on a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member intended to rise on a point of order himself, intending to say that these sittings of Parliament to debate Bill C-21 are not constitutional. However, I wonder why this is coming up in the context of his speech, instead of as a challenge to these extraordinary sittings of the House, in order to consider the bill.
If he wants to make a point of order, he can do that. The appropriate time to do that is at the first possible moment, once the breach of our rules of order has come to light. However, Conservatives have been participating in these extraordinary sittings for some time, without having raised a point of order of this nature.
I think we are past the point where that point of order could be raised. I wonder why we continue to reflect on a decision of the House.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 6:51:13 p.m.
- Watch
I am also going to remind folks that the Speaker tends to be mindful of the need for some leniency. At times, the Speaker may allow references to other matters in debates if they are made in passing. I just need to hear the relevancy to the bill that we are debating this evening. Therefore, the member could maybe bring it together on the relevance of what tonight's debate actually is.
The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in the event that Bill C-21 receives royal assent, I trust that these facts will serve opponents of Bill C-21 in their legal battles in court.
Bill C-21 was a disaster from the day it was introduced, but the defining moment for Bill C-21 was when the Liberals introduced amendments at the committee stage that would have effectively banned thousands of firearms used by hunters across Canada. I mention this because it proved once again that there is a stark difference between what the government is telling Canadians and what it is actually doing.
The Liberals claim they are taking guns away from criminals when, in reality, they are taking firearms away from law-abiding hunters. They claim they are tackling violent crime, but violent crime has increased by 32% since the Liberals took office. They claim that they carefully consulted with stakeholders on this legislation, but they failed to heed the advice of the Canadians who were most impacted.
Conservatives called their bluff and continued to fight for millions of law-abiding firearms owners across Canada. The Prime Minister spent weeks telling Canadians that firearms used for hunting would not be banned. The truth was finally exposed when he admitted, “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt”. After weeks of outrage from Canadians, provinces, territories, indigenous communities and even from members of the government's own party, the government paused its hunting rifle ban.
However, the government turned to Bill C-21 to push it through Parliament. The Liberals moved a closure motion that shut down debate in the House of Commons. They limited the number of committee meetings on this bill. They moved time allocation to shut down debate at committee, and they forced MPs to vote on amendments without studying their full impact.
Therefore, here we are. Hunters do not know which firearms will be banned. The future of Olympic sport shooting in Canada is in jeopardy. Canadians are wondering who will be appointed to the new firearms advisory committee. So much for the sunny ways that the Prime Minister once promised.
Conservatives support common-sense solutions that tackle the root cause of crime. This means going after criminals, getting tough on crime and fixing the broken bail system. That is why Conservatives support cracking down on border smuggling to stop the flow of illegal guns. It is why Conservatives support measures that bring back serious sentences for violent offenders. It is why Conservatives support implementing bail reform to ensure that repeat violent offenders remain behind bars as they await a trial. Instead of focusing on this, the Liberals are targeting law-abiding Canadians in the name of public safety. We have seen no evidence to suggest that taking firearms away from law-abiding firearms owners would reduce crime. As a matter of fact, licensed firearms owners are some of the most tested, vetted and lawfully responsible Canadians in this country.
When it comes to the impacts that Bill C-21 will have on public safety, the chief firearms officer in Alberta stated the following:
Bill C-21 is built on a fundamentally flawed premise. Prohibiting specific types of firearms is not an effective way of improving public safety. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been used on more effective approaches, such as the enforcement of firearms prohibition orders, reinforcing the border or combatting the drug trade and gang activity.
One of the most pressing issues for the Canadians I represent is the rate of rural crime. We know that criminals specifically target rural Canadians because of the lack of law enforcement in rural areas. I hear the stories of seniors watching their sheds being robbed in broad daylight because criminals know that the police do not have time to respond. Rural Canadians are waking up to discover their vehicles stolen, only to find them burned in a field down the road. I was in Swan River last month, a rural town of 4,000 in Manitoba, where nearly every business has bars on the windows and buzzers on the doors to prevent robbery. I can assure members of this House that law-abiding firearms owners across Canada are not committing these crimes; unfortunately, the current government is more focused on targeting rural Canadians who legally own firearms than on targeting rural crime.
In conclusion, I am troubled to see another attack on law-abiding firearms owners being pushed through Parliament. I am even more surprised to see the NDP members who represent rural ridings failing to represent their constituents. The NDP pretends it is standing up for rural Canadians, when in reality, it only stands up for its Liberal coalition partners.
As I mentioned earlier, I represent a completely rural region where most people own a firearm or know someone who does. It is a region where firearms are seen as a tool and not as a weapon. I understand how rural Canadians feel because I am one of them. For those reasons, I will again be voting against Bill C-21 as yet another attack on law-abiding firearms owners.
872 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I note the member spoke about bail reform. This morning, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-48.
As Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, said, “Front-line law enforcement personnel have been asking the government to take concrete steps to address the small number of repeat violent offenders who commit a disproportionate number of offences that put the safety of our communities at risk”. He went on to say that he is pleased the government has introduced “common-sense legislation that responds to the concerns that our members have raised.”
As the member has indicated, this issue is very important for him. Will he and his party support Bill C-48, so that it receives unanimous consent to go to committee and then off to the other place?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-21, and I do not think the member really understands the impact this bill has on rural Canada and the way of life in Canada.
This afternoon, they just thought of a new bill, and he asks what I think of the idea. Judging by past representation of the government, I have absolute apprehension when it comes to commenting on anything that I have not even had a chance to read yet.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today's Conservative Party line is that there is nothing good in Bill C‑21. They say it will not make our fellow citizens safer. If the Conservatives are to be believed, the bill has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
However, I do not know if my colleagues are aware of this, but certain things happened in committee during the clause-by-clause study. The Conservative Party voted in favour of all the government's amendments on ghost guns. It voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois's amendments on cartridge magazines. The Conservative Party itself amended the bill to include the definition of domestic violence. It helped make the bill better.
That is why I have such a hard time understanding why the Conservatives are now saying that there is nothing good in the bill. I would like to better understand my colleagues' position.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the problem with the bill is that it is fundamentally flawed. With all due respect to my colleague, I do not think anybody really appreciates the impact this is having on rural Canada and the way of life or the way we live in rural Canada. I cannot imagine trying to defend my livestock. When I farmed, I had cattle, and there are coyotes that come around. When the mother cow is having her calf, there are packs of wolves and coyotes that will come and kill everything. A farmer needs a gun to fix that. The problem is that this bill is attacking that very farmer.
An hon. member: That is false.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is the problem. It is not false. I wish the member would understand the impact this has.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, earlier in his speech, the member talked about sport shooting. I know there are provisions about sport shooting in the bill with respect to the handgun freeze. I know conservatives have proposed to delete clause 43, which talks a bit about that sport shooting issue. I wonder if he can confirm his support for that Conservative amendment and speak a little to the issue of sport shooting.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just noticed that there is a list of rural NDP ridings here, and this member is not on that list. He obviously has an urban riding. I just wonder how much he consulted with his colleagues and all the rural ridings the NDP members actually represent and how much they listened to them. By the sounds of it and by the support of the bill, I would think he did not listen to them at all.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
