Bill C-314

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition for which a person could receive medical assistance in dying.

Sitting Resumed

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, many times in the member opposite's speech and in many of his colleagues', they have stated that what needs to be done in order to tackle gun crime in this country is to bring in stiffer penalties and more measures at the border. I find it interesting that they all failed to state that Bill C-21 does that.

I want to know if the member agrees with increasing the maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years of imprisonment for firearms-related offences. That is a good measure in the bill. Do Conservatives not think that increasing penalties is a good measure?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I suppose if the member wants to believe the talking points she has been handed to read in the House she would make that argument. What she is failing to understand is that we are not talking about a mandatory penalty or even a minimum penalty; we are talking about a maximum penalty.

Anyone who understands the criminal justice system knows that a maximum penalty means it cannot be more than that, but it certainly does nothing to penalize crime. There are a lot of measures that could be taken to deal with the gun crime we are seeing in our cities, but that one is laughable to say the least. The bill does zero at trying to address crime.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talks a lot about doing more to address crime. I agree with him.

The only measure in Bill C‑21 that the government proposed for countering firearms trafficking is to change the maximum sentences from 10 years to 14 years for anyone found guilty of firearms trafficking.

Although this is not a bad measure, the problem is that it is quite rare for someone to get the maximum sentence of 10 years these days. Why? It is because criminal organizations use people who do not have a criminal record to smuggle illegal firearms across the border. As a result, these people get lesser sentences. They rarely get the 10-year maximum.

Today, with Bill C‑21, even if we increase the maximum sentence to 14 years, will that really have an impact? I do not think so. I think that my colleague may agree with me. Does he think that is enough?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the member. That measure will not have an impact on crime in this country. This bill only affects gun owners who are not responsible for crimes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, although there was a lot of disinformation and misinformation in it, I thank the member for his intervention. I would have very much appreciated hearing about, with respect to Bill C-21, how hard my NDP colleagues are willing to work to protect the rights of people. I asked a different Conservative member about the outdated information Conservatives are sharing this evening in this debate.

I know Bill C-21, in its current state, has the best balance and offers many ways to ensure that the right of indigenous peoples to hunt is protected, and that hunters who are lawful gun owners are able to continue using their rifles. In this whole process, it has been Conservatives who have made a lot of mistakes, including trying to ensure there are no more exemptions for sport shooters.

I would like to ask the member what his read of Bill C-21 is with respect to what rifle is being banned that would not allow hunters to hunt or would not stopping criminals from using—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time. I have to give the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie a few seconds to answer.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not really even sure what the member's question was, but I did hear her talk about there somehow being disinformation in what I had to say. I would challenge her to stand up to give an example of one piece of disinformation she heard.

However, I can say what is disinformation. Every time the NDP members in the House stand up and call themselves an opposition party, that is disinformation. What we are seeing is a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle has the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments with respect to firearms. To begin, I would like to say that, as everyone knows, I will be voting in favour of Bill C‑21. The reason is that, thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Québécois at committee, most of the criticisms have been addressed.

Today, we have a bill that is far from perfect. The government rejected our proposals, which were very reasonable. However, let me say that Bill C‑21 is better than it used to be. Let us remember that the bill was introduced to attack the black market for firearms in Canadian cities. Instead, the government attacked hunters.

In Laurentides—Labelle, outfitters, nature reserves, controlled harvesting zones and hunting cabins are an integral part of our regional identity. Hunting is a major activity. It is important to protect it and keep it alive. That is why I am pleased to say that it is thanks to the Bloc Québécois that hunters will be able to continue practising their sport in Laurentides—Labelle.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who is here beside me. I want to congratulate her on a job well done. It must have taken her so many hours, emails and studies to go from layperson to subject matter expert. She deserves so much credit.

What happened is that, together, we convinced the government to withdraw its amendments and remove the reference to hunting rifles. I am going to address hunters, but before I do, I want to mention that the government tabled 400 pages of amendments without any explanation. There were thousands of models of firearms listed in those pages. The government was disorganized, to be frank. This made hunters angry. That is an unacceptable way to work.

In its bill, which is intended to curb gun crime in cities, the government had used some strange definitions, to say the least. It referred to hunting rifles when they were not the problem. It is easy to imagine how angry hunters were when they saw that they were being treated like criminals. Moreover, the government did not consult them. We need to go after the gun runners and criminal groups first and foremost, not the people who drive down Highway 117 to the controlled harvesting zones to hunt.

Hunting rifles were never included in the bill. The government wanted to create confusion, and it worked. It took political pressure from the Bloc Québécois for the government to recognize its mistake and change the definition to make it clearer.

I want to say to the hunters, to everyone who contacted me, to the hundreds who have written to me, who have called me, who have stopped me in the street to express their concerns, that they are not criminals. They are not dangerous. The Bloc Québécois will always stand by their side. They have already seen that. I will be by their side to stand up for their sport, their strength and their honour. They know how to handle guns. They know how to protect their guns and, above all, how to respect their environment and all livestock.

I would like to tell them that they are not the problem. The government went after the wrong target and needs to acknowledge that.

I am pleased to be able to address the people of Laurentides—Labelle on this subject because there has been a lot of disinformation and manipulation of public opinion. I thank those who had the patience to listen to everything that was said. Today, we set the record straight. That is what happened.

I have said it before and I will say it again: When Bill C-21 was introduced, hunting rifles were not at all affected by the bill. That is still the case today after the study in committee. I want to reassure hunters because the Bloc Québécois worked really hard to ensure that hunting rifles would not be affected. I will say it again. Hunting rifles are not affected.

The Conservative Party is once again trying to lead people to believe that Bill C‑21 is the biggest assault on hunters across the country. Unfortunately, I do not know whether they read the bill as amended by the committee. That is a good question. No hunting rifles will be banned with the passage of this bill. The new definition of prohibited firearms is prospective, which means it will only apply to weapons that do not even exist yet but will come on the market in the future.

I do not know why they keep scaring hunters with this. In fact, I wonder, are they doing this to get votes, regardless of the facts? That is another question, and it is unfortunate.

At the start of my speech, I talked about how important hunting is in Laurentides—Labelle. I am thinking about the Papineau-Labelle wildlife reserve, the Rouge-Matawin wildlife reserve and the Mazana controlled harvesting zone. I will name several. I am thinking about Mekoos, Jodoin, Cecaurel, Mitchinamecus, Fer à cheval. I have been to all of them, they are my playground. I could also mention the Air Mont-Laurier outfitters. People fly in to hunt and enjoy nature in the north.

I can assure everyone that Bill C‑21 will not interfere with our activities.

As the member for Laurentides—Labelle, I will always stand up for my region, its economy, its environment and its development.

I have two riding neighbours on the Liberal benches. I want the people of Argenteuil—La Petite Nation and Pontiac to know that the Bloc Québécois understands rural issues. We support rural communities, and we recognize all the effort that goes into regional development. We always work toward maintaining the right balance between everything. We work for these people.

The Bloc Québécois has been very clear. We want to see fewer handguns on the streets of Montreal and Laval. We must make our streets safer. We must ensure that criminals do not have access to guns to shoot people in the street. This is why the Bloc Québécois is working so hard in committee and in the House to get the government back on track. We are the voice of reason between the sloppy Liberals and the hysterical Conservative.

In closing, I want to tell the people of Laurentides—Labelle that the Bloc Québécois is the party of the regions and of regional development. It is the party that represents the voice of Quebeckers in the House of Commons. I will always work for the people in my community. That is why I am here.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned in her speech the poor crafting of the original bill, the massive amounts of amendments introduced by the Liberals and then, of course, the work done by her colleagues, of which she is so proud. I am incredibly proud of the work my colleagues did to bring forward common-sense amendments to make the bill better.

Some of the Liberals in this place have stood today and accused Conservatives of a lot of the propaganda, disinformation and misinformation, which she also mentioned, for the purpose of fundraising. Does the member think the Liberals have used the bill in the same way and for many of the same purposes? Could she speak to how important it is to do that hard work to be an opposition party that works to propose solutions for legislation?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.

With what is happening with the different parties, I believe that there is always more we can do.

The Bloc Québécois acts according to its conscience, intellect and solely in the interest of our people. I believe that answers the question that the opposition parties, especially the Bloc, which keeps the interests of Quebeckers in the forefront, are not being partisan or playing politics with this issue.

On one side or the other, there were good ideas at every stage in the past few weeks.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Laurentides—Labelle had very thoughtful remarks on this bill. I have found over the course of the debate that there has been a lot of muddying of the waters, where Conservatives and people on social media are bringing up the firearms advisory committee, which I will state for the record is a body that already exists. They talk about how the government is going to use that body to strike out firearms. That is a power that the government already has under the Criminal Code.

I would like my colleague to reflect on that as part of the misinformation out there. A lot of people are trying to confuse those existing powers with those found in Bill C-21. Could the member clarify that those are in fact very separate elements?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, someone mentioned political strategy earlier. What I said earlier in my remarks was that this needs to be addressed, because it is serious. With my colleague leading the way, the Bloc Québécois has put pressure on the government to stop. People are being shot down in the street. At some point, the government needs to wake up and take action.

Yes, certain measures can be taken, but it is also important to have a clear conscience and carry out consultations in order to end up with a good bill, even if that does take a while. At the same time, this is one step, but it is far from complete.

That is why I said that the process was very messy right from the outset.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk to us about the red flag provision that the government proposed in Bill C‑21. I think she has heard me talk about it often. In the beginning, it looked like a good measure that would help women who are victims of domestic violence, but all of the women's groups that appeared before the committee told us that it would not help them. They were afraid that it would cause law enforcement to shirk its responsibilities and put the burden on victims.

The Bloc Québécois voted against these provisions in Bill C‑21. The Conservative Party did too. However, the government and the NDP still went ahead with this measure.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. I am sure that she has women's groups in her riding that are disappointed that the government is moving forward with this measure.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very specific example of the importance of listening to our constituents and representing them. When we consult people, when we listen to them and understand them, then we need to act on what they say.

That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois did with the red flag provision.