SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Ron McKinnon

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Liberal
  • Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam
  • British Columbia
  • Voting Attendance: 66%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $132,686.42

  • Government Page
  • May/30/24 2:07:00 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like, once again, to launch my Community Champions awards, for which we are now accepting nominations. Each year, we recognize everyday leaders who work hard to build a better community for everyone. A community champion is an outstanding neighbour, such as a volunteer, frontline worker, parent or unsung hero, who demonstrates leadership. Through their leadership, they create a better society by fostering a culture of kindness and generosity. They inspire others to step up and be part of positive change. To nominate a community champion, please email my constituency office. Nominations are open until July 14. I look forward to honouring this year's outstanding community champions in Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
117 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/27/24 2:03:55 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I recognize a few remarkable young constituents from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. Through the GLOCAL organization, these constituents won micro grants by creating educational and engaging projects to empower civic awareness and democratic literacy. Richard Mou, Olivia Liu and Larisa Jia won the biggest prize, for creating an IOS game called “Beaver Quiz-A-Mole”, which teaches players about the responsibilities of the Canadian government. Kevin Chuang won for his project called “After the Breach”, which takes a critical analysis of cyber threats to Canadian institutions. Last, Bana Anabtawi and her team won for their formation of a non-profit organization that focuses on community outreach and addresses the gaps within youth leadership. I congratulate these phenomenal contestants. Their leadership and hard work are an inspiration to us all.
141 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/9/23 10:12:42 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 9th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in relation to Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. The committee has studied the bill and decided to report it back to the House with amendments.
64 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone who has participated in this debate. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is critically important to the good of our democracy and of our country. It exists to ensure that the rights and freedoms of minorities are respected and protected in our laws and by our governments. However, it is not and cannot be merely a static document. We must be able to call upon it at need, to weigh and measure the laws that we enact in this place, to ensure that these laws and government actions do, in fact, respect and protect those rights and freedoms. Doing so cannot be the sole purview of those who are financially well off and who can personally afford to engage the legal process. There must also be recourse for ordinary people to challenge laws that they believe are unjust or that unreasonably infringe upon their rights and freedoms, to test those laws against the fundamentals of the charter. That is the court challenges program. The court challenges program, however, has been on and off again over the years, and this is problematic. The purpose of this bill, Bill C-316, is to provide an enduring mechanism wired into legislation, administered by arm's-length, independent experts, to support the examination of nonfrivolous, nonvexatious questions that are significant to the public good. This will enable these important questions to be brought forward, irrespective of the financial means of the proponents, to be answered properly in a court of law. In doing so, we strengthen the charter itself and bolster this critical foundation of our democracy. I urge all members to support this bill. Let us get it to committee.
286 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Oct/20/23 10:28:08 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-38 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to build on some of the questions asked earlier. I wonder whether the hon. parliamentary secretary could give us more information on how this would facilitate the phase-out of the Indian Act.
38 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/16/23 12:06:17 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, with a strong tradition of service in my home province, B.C.'s Lower Mainland is home to thousands of military members and their families. We have seen members of the armed forces serve Canadians, often leaving their family at a moment's notice. The sacrifices are difficult, but military families make these sacrifices in service of a safer and more prosperous Canada. Could the parliamentary secretary share with the House his work with Seamless Canada in supporting military families?
82 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 8:17:36 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his amendment being passed. The committee worked very hard to do so. It was great to have him substituting in here and there on the committee. It was a good help. He mentioned that there is a problem with the definition of what an assault-style firearm is. I would agree that it needs work. That is, in fact, the purpose of the firearms advisory committee. It will consult with sports shooters, hunters, indigenous people and people across the country, from all walks of life, who will help it to formalize a correct and good definition of what an assault-style firearm is. I certainly hope that he will contribute to that discussion.
120 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 8:06:23 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I know that, in the 42nd Parliament, I believe, the then-minister of public safety and emergency preparedness conducted quite extensive consultations right across the country. He spoke with gun clubs and many people involved in the gun community. I set up a meeting between him and members of my local gun club. In my riding, there is one of the largest outdoor ranges in the Lower Mainland, and I have actually been invited there to shoot on a couple of occasions and quite enjoyed it. I do not know how anybody can afford to do that, because it is pretty expensive. Regardless, I arranged a meeting between them and the former minister. This consultation resulted in the first iteration of Bill C-21, which did not survive that particular Parliament; it was a starting point, however, for this new version of Bill C-21.
147 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 8:04:57 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be working with the member on the committee, and I would like to assure her that clause-by-clause is not always this bad and does not always take six months. On the amendments we brought forward in the fall, it became clear, after much debate and much consultation on an ongoing basis, that they needed work, so they needed to be withdrawn and another approach taken. That is what we did. We responded to what people were saying. We listened and we took action so we could move this forward in a positive way.
101 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 8:02:59 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I personally do not know which data it is using, but I know that the government has undertaken considerable effort to conduct consultations both recently and before Bill C-21 was initially launched in the 43rd Parliament. We have reached out to people at gun clubs, to gun afficionados, to sport shooters and so forth right across the country to ensure that we were approaching this matter in a correct way.
73 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/17/23 7:53:24 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoyed the speech by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I might differ on a few quibbles, but by and large I really appreciate his treatment of the matter. It is an honour to join this discussion on strong, new federal firearms legislation and to join the voices of those supporting the progression of Bill C-21 through Parliament. The committee on public safety and national security has done the remarkable and arduous job of scrutinizing this bill. I would like to thank colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their constructive deliberations and collegiality. We would not have gotten this done without their invaluable co-operation, and every one of us has a stake in it. We have heard from members who described the impact of gun violence in their communities. We have heard from survivors. We have heard from those who work with the government on many matters of public safety. They all make the point that we cannot lose another life to gun violence in this country. That is why I am so proud to be part of a government that cares about moving forward. We know that, working with parliamentarians across the aisle and with Canadians at large, we can pass Bill C-21 as a package of reforms that would broadly enhance firearms safety throughout Canada. This would be the strongest firearms legislation we may ever see as parliamentarians. It would introduce stiffer sentencing for trafficking and new charges for illegal manufacturing of ghost guns and for altering the magazine or cartridge of a gun to exceed its lawful capacity. It would set out new wiretapping authorities for police to stop gun violence before it happens. Bill C-21 would introduce a national freeze on handguns, and that would mean that the vast majority of individuals would no longer be able to transfer, that is buy, sell or import handguns into Canada. This would end the growth of handguns in Canada. This bill is also significant in how it would address the role of guns in gender-based violence, a pernicious issue we simply cannot ignore. It would prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands. Individuals with a restraining order against them, whether previous or current, would no longer be able to obtain a firearms licence. New red-flag laws would allow courts to order the immediate removal of firearms from individuals who may be a danger to themselves or anyone else. Additionally, yellow-flag laws would allow chief firearms officers to suspend an individual's firearms licence if the CFO receives information calling into question their licence eligibility. The identity of vulnerable people who provide information to the courts would be protected. Let me be clear that there would be no obligation for victims to use these laws. These provisions would not remove any current tools. They would be there to offer additional protection, additional tools in the tool box. The unwavering goal of this legislation is to protect Canadians, particularly those who are most at risk. Statistics show that victims of intimate partner violence are about five times more likely to be killed if a firearm is present in the home. I would like to share a few more important statistics with my colleagues. We know that the more available guns are, the higher the risk of homicides and suicides. Handguns are the most commonly used firearms in homicides, and suicides by firearm accounted for 73% of all firearm deaths in Canada between 2000 and 2020. Fifty-eight per cent of crime guns are traced to domestic sources that are predominantly from straw purchasing and theft. Reducing the number of guns in our communities would mean reducing the number of victims of gun violence. Making handguns unavailable for transfer and restricting their importation just makes sense. However, as we have said from the beginning, we are not targeting responsible handgun owners or those using firearms for purposes like hunting or sport shooting; this is about tackling violent crime and preventing senseless, tragic deaths. We know that no single initiative will end the complex issue of gun violence. This bill is but one part of our comprehensive approach. We have seen far too many tragedies, including those recently in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. We have seen close to 16,000 incidents of violent crime involving firearms in Canada since 2010. We have been clear that firearms designed for war, capable of rapid reloading and discharge that can inflict catastrophic harm, have no place in our communities. We have also been clear that we fully respect and recognize the traditional and cultural importance of hunting for indigenous communities. The government recognizes the importance of consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples to ensure consistency of federal laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill also includes a specific clause that clearly states that nothing in this definition is intended to derogate from the rights of indigenous people under section 35 of the Constitution. It must be emphasized that guns that have already been designed and manufactured when the bill would come into force would not be affected. Other than so-called ghost guns, no existing rifle or shotgun whatsoever would be affected by this bill. We would also be re-establishing the Canadian firearms advisory committee to independently review the classification of firearms on the current market with a diverse membership from across the country. This independent panel would be charged with making recommendations to the government about the classification of firearms and what constitutes reasonable use for hunting. It is our goal to keep communities safe. I am confident that Bill C-21 would get that balance right. As we have said from the beginning, no single program or initiative can end gun violence. That is why this is just one of the many initiatives we are deploying, alongside border measures, investments in community infrastructure and banning assault-style weapons to keep our communities safe. Since 2015, we have focused on the social causes of crime with programs like the $250-million building safer communities fund so that we can tackle gun crime and support community-led projects. We have also invested over $1 billion, since 2016, into the initiative to take action against gun and gang violence, which provides funding to provinces and territories to reduce gun and gang crime in our communities and enhances the capacity of the RCMP and CBSA to detect and disrupt gun smuggling. That is on top of the over $40 million provided annually through the national crime prevention strategy, which invests in community-based efforts that prevent youth involvement in crime and help address the risk factors that have been known to lead to criminal activity. Federal officials have met with our federal, provincial and territorial colleagues to talk about the ways in which we could all make certain modifications to the bail system so that we can address specifically the challenges around repeat violent offenders who have used either firearms or other weapons, and this is how we will keep our communities safe through collaboration, discussion and multipronged approaches. Bill C-21 is a key piece of this puzzle. I want to thank all members once again for their constructive input. I encourage all members to join me to today in making sure Bill C-21 moves forward.
1237 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/16/23 3:49:54 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-21 
Madam Speaker, I would just like to clarify for the hon. member that Bill C-21 respects sport shooters, gun owners, hunters and fishers right across the country. The purpose of Bill C-21 is to address the problematic use of firearms and to reduce violence, which is not always about crime. Sometimes it is domestic violence, suicide, and so forth. Bill C-21 takes a great stab at doing that. It is not perfect, but it is going in a good direction.
83 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the member's question, because that is precisely what this bill would do. It would add to the existing process requirement that the administrators of the program report to the minister on, I believe, an annual basis, and that the minister table that report in the House within 15 days. The report that is requested is to identify the cases, or at least the nature of cases, that have been supported. It should be remembered as well, as the member noted, that this program originally was constituted to protect French language rights across the country, and we wish to build on that. I would note that, the more we can defend French elsewhere in Canada, the more it supports Quebec. Both of my children, who were born and raised in British Columbia, speak fluent French.
140 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, the key here is that the members of these different committees are not chosen by the government nor any government body. The program is administered by the University of Ottawa and is responsible for selecting appropriate people who are versed in the law and who make the decisions about which cases that come before them are of sufficient public importance that they should be supported under the program.
70 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I certainly think there are many areas in which we could continue to act to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Although my focus at this point is on the court challenges program, I think it is very important that we are able to test the laws in some manner or mechanism to make sure that the provisions of the charter are upheld.
66 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
moved that Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, it is often too easy to take for granted the many rights and freedoms we enjoy as Canadians. Canada is a free, successful country because of the decisions made by those who came before us. We are an open and inclusive democracy in large part because the rights of individuals are respected. Canada is a country where the rule of law operates independently from politicians and where our Constitution protects the rights of Canadians. This is something we should champion. It is something we should celebrate. It is something we must do everything we can to protect. I introduced Bill C-316 to build upon the good work of previous Parliaments. In the 42nd Parliament, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I was then a member, as part of our study on access to justice we recommended that the court challenges program, which had previously been cancelled, be recommenced. I am happy to say this was in fact done. In our report, we also called for enshrining the court challenges program in legislation to enhance its sustainability and to ensure that any government seeking its cancellation in the future would require the approval of Parliament to do so. Bill C-316 would do just that. It would enshrine the court challenges program into Canadian law, providing stability and certainty to the program, and ensuring that it continues to operate predictably. This, in turn, would give greater protection to the rights of Canadians as we continue to provide a mechanism that enables individuals and organizations to challenge laws and regulations that they believe violate their rights. The court challenges program protects and strengthens constitutional rights. It provides funding for individuals and organizations who wish to bring matters of national importance before the courts. More specifically, the program provides funding to protect our constitutional and quasi-constitutional rights in matters involving official languages and human rights. Created in the 1970s, the court challenges program played a key role in helping Canadians clarify and assert their rights, especially with regard to official languages and equality rights. The program was eliminated in 2006, and our government restored it in 2017. We expanded it to include rights not originally covered, such as specific sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms pertaining to fundamental rights, including democratic rights, freedom of expression, and the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Over the years, the program has been used many times to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. It has provided funds to disabled Canadians to help them ensure they are treated fairly. It has helped to clarify the rights of LGBTQ+ people to marry whom they love. It has strengthened the rights of official-language minorities to protect their rights and preserve their culture. The court challenges program also provided support to important cases, such as Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a law society could not prevent a qualified permanent resident from practising law in Canada simply because they were not a Canadian citizen. The court challenges program strengthened the rights of French-language minorities in British Columbia. It helped protect the rights of francophone children to receive French-language education of equivalent quality to that of English-language education. In its ruling in June 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the importance of education in the official language of one's choice. The court also recognized the key role that section 23 of the charter plays in the vitality of official language minority communities. I know that some of my honourable colleagues may ask why we would provide funding to allow people to sue us. I think this asks the wrong question. The right question is why we would fund cases defending the charter, and the answer is that, as we know, the cost of justice can be prohibitively expensive. Justice should not be decided by who has the most money. It is of significant public good that the constitutional rights of Canadians be protected, whether or not they have money. The value of the court challenges program is that it breathes life into the charter and into the Official Languages Act. It provides meaning to our constitutional rights, particularly by enabling those with lesser means to protect their rights. The program allows matters of merit with significant public impact to be brought forward, regardless of the means of those bringing forward the case. Other members might wonder if the program allows the federal government to decide which cases receive funding. Does it allow the federal government to sue provincial governments that do not agree? I can say that the answer to that question is no. The program is independent of the government. It is administered by the University of Ottawa. Funding decisions are made by two groups of independent experts, one for official language rights and the other for human rights. These committees are made up of experts who are selected based on their expertise in law. The government has no say in which cases receive funding, and the funds are often used to challenge federal decisions or policies. This is, in fact, a good thing. I think that I can say without much controversy that the government does not always get it right, and it is important that, when policies and laws are put into place, we have a process to review, and possibly correct, these decisions. In a constitutional democracy where the rule of law is paramount, allowing Canadians to bring forward cases when their rights may have been infringed upon is an important part of our constitutional democracy. We face a great many challenges as Canadians. The world is an uncertain place, but Canada is blessed with tremendous resources and potential. We have some of the best and brightest people in the world, and we have inherited the tremendous institutions that have made us successful: pluralism, freedom of speech and debate, and the opportunity to make a better life for our families. These are the things that bring us together as Canadians. The rights and the freedoms that we hold dear are critically important to Canada’s success as a country. We must do everything we can to shore up our democracy and protect our constitutional system. By passing Bill C-316 and enshrining the court challenges program into Canadian law, we would be sending a strong message about the importance of protecting the rights of Canadians. It would demonstrate our shared commitment to ensuring that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter, the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Constitution are respected and upheld. I hope members will join me in supporting Bill C-316, so we can better protect our democratic institutions.
1168 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/27/23 12:55:21 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could tell us a little more about the help that this budget would provide to vulnerable people in her riding.
27 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/24/23 12:20:11 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Madam Speaker, I also would like to compliment my friend on his sartorial splendour today. I take particular notice of his mention of his recent visit to India. I understand there are unique challenges with trade with India and particular states within India. Can the hon. member comment on how we can address those challenges and how that will affect our economy going forward?
64 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/7/23 10:02:56 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, entitled “Up to the Task: Strengthening Canada’s Security Posture in Relation to Russia.” Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
60 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (Court Challenges Program). He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to introduce my private member's bill, which would enshrine the court challenges program into federal law. The court challenges program supports Canadians seeking to bring cases of national significance that protect our constitutional rights. It plays a vital role in ensuring that the government acts within the bounds of the Constitution and the Official Languages Act. Enshrining this program into legislation would provide greater certainty for the program and allow it to continue its important work well into the future. It would send a strong message about the importance of protecting the rights of Canadians, and it would demonstrate Parliament's shared commitment to ensuring that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter and the Official Languages Act are respected and upheld.
152 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border