SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 198

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)
  • May/16/23 10:10:05 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 0.1. Motion No. 2 That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 1.1. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 4. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 5. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 6. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 17. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
94 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)
  • May/16/23 10:14:38 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
moved: That Bill C-21 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
11 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)
  • May/16/23 10:14:38 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
moved: That Bill C-21, in Clause 45, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 51 the following: “(1.11) The portion of paragraph 117(k) of the Act after subparagraph (ii) is replaced by the following: of firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, cartridge magazines and components and parts designed exclusively for use in the manufacture of or assembly into firearms;”
70 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)
  • May/16/23 10:14:38 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
moved: Motion No. 10 That Bill C-21, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 45 with the following: “must deliver to a peace officer any firearm that they possess within 24 hours or” Motion No. 11 That Bill C-21, in Clause 37, be amended (a) by replacing line 4 on page 46 with the following: “or a chief firearms officer” (b) by replacing line 19 on page 46 with the following: “cer the firearm to which” (c) by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 46 with the following: “ferred to in subsection (4), deliver to a peace officer any firearm that they pos-”
120 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
  • May/16/23 11:01:48 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with the hon. member. If this was the first time that she had been involved in such an intensive clause-by-clause study, it did not show. She has always been very professional at all points of the debate during which we studied the bill clause by clause. At the report stage, I note that some of the amendments proposed by the Conservatives are comical and bizarre, because they contradict what they have always said. The Bloc Québécois, on the other hand, tabled a motion that I think is important and which seeks to close the loopholes that currently exist for manufacturers and importers, which will now have to undergo a process. For the time being, it is an honour-based system. I want to ask a question of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. Is it important that we close this loophole that has existed for years and makes it so that manufacturers and importers find ways to circumvent legislation that was put in place?
179 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Mr. Peter Julian
  • May/16/23 11:14:57 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, it is really up to Conservatives to defend their record on this, but in committee, I proposed about a dozen times for a time extension to continue clause-by-clause. A dozen times, the Conservatives said no, and a dozen times, I asked to let us keep working. Even last Tuesday night, we finished at 6:30 p.m., and I moved for unanimous consent to keep working, but Conservatives shut it down. That happened a dozen times, until the House of Commons directed the committee with a structure that allowed us to get through every single amendment, which was a really effective committee study. I cannot explain how Conservatives acted in committee. I cannot explain how they are acting at report stage. I can say that the parties that have worked together have produced a bill that—
141 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)
  • May/16/23 11:17:34 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about consistency. Over the past few months, the Conservatives have repeatedly criticized Bill C‑21 on the grounds that it attacks sport shooters and athletes. Clause 43 actually mentions these elite sport shooters to protect them from the handgun freeze, but—surprise, surprise—the Conservatives want to delete that clause. I wonder if my colleague can explain to us why they are saying that, on the one hand, we have to protect shooters and, on the other, we have to delete the only clause that protects them.
98 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)
  • May/16/23 1:52:10 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, particularly when he talked about sport shooting. I really wonder about that. Clause 43 of Bill C-21 protects sport shooters so that they can continue to practise their hobby. The Conservatives moved Motion No. 12, which seeks to remove this clause that exempts sports shooters and protects them so they can continue to practise their hobby. I am wondering about the consistency of saying that they are not protected while removing the very clause that protects them.
92 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)
  • May/16/23 6:37:34 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear it in her speech specifically, but I know Conservatives have expressed concern about clause 43 and moved to take it out of the bill. Can she affirm her support for removing clause 43 and explain to the House why she thinks that is so important?
51 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
  • May/16/23 6:37:52 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I do not have clause 43 in front of me, so I am not going to disagree or agree with something I cannot specifically refer to at the moment.
31 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/16/23
Mr. Daniel Blaikie
  • May/16/23 6:38:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that removing clause 43 is one of the Conservative amendments at report stage, so I would encourage her to do her homework on her party's own amendments. If she does want to take a little time to let us know whether she is in favour of or opposed to a Conservative Party amendment, I think we would all appreciate knowing whether she supports her party's amendments or not.
77 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border