Debates of May 1st, 2015

Citizen Voting Act

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 4, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will the consent of the House to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There is no consent.

Before I go to the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth on a point of order, if it relates to what just happened, I want to remind all hon. members that there is a requirement for unanimous consent to see the clock. If the member has a point of order, I would encourage him to promptly make reference to the rule or Standing Order to which he is referring in that case.

The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am raising this point of order is that the failure of government MPs to give unanimous consent to seeing the clock at 1:30 p.m. compromises the integrity of the Thursday statement and of the organization of House business that relies on it.

Let us look at pages 488 and 489 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, by O'Brien and Bosc, which I will refer to for the rest of the intervention. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that I indicate what it says about the Thursday statement in order for you to understand the point of order. With regard to the Thursday statement, it states:

Each Thursday, after Oral Question, the Speaker recognizes the House Leader of the Official Opposition, or his or her representative, to ask the Government House Leader, or his or her representative, about the government orders to be considered by the House in the succeeding days or week. The Government House Leader then proceeds to outline for the House what business the government intends to bring forward. This practice is commonly known as the “Business Statement” or the “Thursday Statement”. The Weekly Business Statement is not referred to in the Standing Orders but is permitted subject to the discretion of the Chair....

A bit further along, it says:

The Weekly Business Statement was inaugurated on September 23, 1968, when the then President of the Privy Council, in announcing the business the government intended to call the following day, stated that a new practice would begin whereby on every Thursday the government would outline its intentions for the forthcoming week and then respond to questions. Prior to this, it had been the custom of the Government House Leader to announce, at the close of each sitting day, the business to be considered the next day.

Finally, in O'Brien and Bosc:

The Speaker has stressed on many occasions that the time provided for this Statement should not be used by Members as an opportunity to engage in negotiations or debate. The Speaker has also not been inclined to consider the question of House business at any time other than on a Thursday during a week of regularly scheduled sittings. On occasion, the Government House Leader has used this period to request the unanimous consent of the House to propose, without notice, motions related to the business of the House.

With that rule, effectively that practice, in mind, it is important to note what the House leader said yesterday in the Thursday statement. It is very key to know what he said, because it is completely contradictory to what is happening right now in the House. He said:

After this statement, we will—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. What is happening right now in the House is that a request for unanimous consent to see the clock has been denied. I think we are all in agreement that unanimous consent is required for that.

I presume the member is presuming what will happen next, as opposed to what is already happening. An order has not been called. There is no government order before the House at this point. The Chair had not had the opportunity to call orders of the day yet. For clarification for the member, there is no business before the House right now because an order has not been called. He is presuming what is about to be called, I presume.

If the member could be clearer in his reference and could come to a conclusion, that would be appreciated.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be as clear as I can on this. When I say “the business before the House”, I do mean the giving of unanimous consent in a way that is contrary to the rules of the House. I am trying to make the point that in fact—

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You are trying to filibuster. That is what you are trying to do.

[An hon. member]

It is nonsense.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not nonsense.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that I am asking you to rule that unanimous consent cannot be given in these circumstances. That is the matter before the House. In order for—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. A request was made for unanimous consent to see the clock. That was denied. The proper process was followed. This has nothing to do with the statement that was made yesterday afternoon or with what may follow.

Clearly the rules were followed related to the business of seeing the clock. Unanimous consent was denied. There is no argument that, given other circumstances, it changes the rules related to the unanimous consent requirement.

Again, I am going to go back to the member. The point that he is making is not valid. If he would like to make his point, I encourage him to do it succinctly.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the issue of whether or not my point is valid cannot be ruled on in advance of me making the point. I am trying to argue that the Thursday statement and the practice that surrounds it is directly relevant to the vote that has taken place.

Therefore, if I cannot continue to explain that, I do understand and will accept your ruling. However, I need to explain the argument in order for you to understand why I do believe it is not the case that unanimous consent simply being given in these circumstances is in and of itself valid.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair has said twice, and I will repeat it a third time, that it is the opinion of the Chair that the procedure for unanimous consent was followed properly and that there are not extenuating circumstances that caused those rules to change. Consequently, the request to see the clock has been denied, as it should have been.

In the opinion of the Chair, there is no argument that this member can make that would suggest that different rules ought to apply in this situation, whether it relates to the Thursday question or what might happen next. On that question, the Chair is clear.

As always, any member of this place has an opportunity to challenge the ruling of the Chair if they so wish. However, I think in this case it is quite clear that what has just happened is unusual but is not outside the rules of this place.

Is the hon. member for Saint-Lambert rising on the same point of order?

Physical Obstruction

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to add my remarks on the question of privilege raised yesterday by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I will remind the House of the incident. While my colleague was in an official House of Commons shuttle bus, an RCMP officer refused him, as well as some other members of the House, access to the parliamentary precinct.

That physical obstruction impeded him from performing his parliamentary duties, which I believe constitutes a prima facie breach of the member's privilege and therefore the privileges of all members of the House.

There were also some Conservative members on the bus with my colleague, and they too shared his concerns regarding what happened and their inability to return to the House, because as members will know, we had a number of votes yesterday.

I was very surprised to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who said that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already dealt with this issue, and therefore the issue of obstructing members needs no further comment. I find that extremely troubling, which is why I wanted to add my voice to the discussion.

On page 75 of Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, Erskine May defines parliamentary privilege as:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively…and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.

These functions are critical to the work that we all do here in the House and in Parliament to represent our constituents.

It is true that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already considered this issue. In fact, it submitted its report on March 26. The committee considered a question of privilege raised by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who was denied access to Parliament Hill during the official visit of the President of Germany.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, more specifically to the testimony from Marc Bosc, Acting Clerk of the House of Commons, Kevin Vickers, former Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, and Patrick McDonell, current Sergeant-at-Arms but the then Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms and director general of security services.

During the course of their appearance, the process for determining the security arrangement during visits by foreign dignitaries to Parliament Hill was explained. It was stated that during such visits, extensive planning and numerous meetings take place between the three partners involved in providing security on the parliamentary precinct: the House of Commons security services, the RCMP and the Ottawa Police Service.

Mr. Vickers noted a key step towards interoperability was taken five years ago with the creation of the master security planning office, comprised of representatives from the Senate, House of Commons and RCMP.

The mandate of this office is to provide guidance and strategic direction and to ensure a proactive and coordinated security approach within the precinct. Mr. Vickers indicated that all official visits are accorded different security levels, ranging from levels one to five, with level one being the highest level of risk.

The visit on September 25, 2014—when the incident involving the member for Acadie—Bathurst occurred—was designated as a level four visit, during which it is common practice to not limit pedestrian access at closed points.

In the case of the member for Acadie—Bathurst, there was to be no stopping of pedestrians, regardless of whether they were members of Parliament or not. However, the member for Acadie—Bathurst was prevented from entering the precinct.

I think it is important that the House be aware of what the level of security was yesterday when the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and other members were blocked from accessing the parliamentary precinct.

When the committee examined the question of privilege raised by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, we were told that the House security services were going to double their efforts to ensure that front-line officers thoroughly understand that members must have unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. However, the problem that arose yesterday involved an RCMP officer.

I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to something else that was said before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, when the committee was examining the question of privilege raised by the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Bob Paulson, the RCMP commissioner, Gilles Michaud, the assistant commissioner and commanding officer of the national division of the RCMP, Mike Cabana, the deputy commissioner of federal policing for the RCMP, Charles Bordeleau, the chief of police for the Ottawa Police Service, and Murray Knowles, an inspector for the Ottawa Police Service, appeared before the committee.

Commissioner Paulson gave the committee an overview of the RCMP's role on Parliament Hill and during visits by foreign dignitaries. The RCMP is responsible for securing the grounds of Parliament Hill and ensuring the safety of the Prime Minister. The RCMP is also responsible for the safety and security of visiting dignitaries when they are outside the buildings that make up the parliamentary precinct. The RCMP is often faced with competing security priorities. Commissioner Paulson said that the RCMP takes every measure possible to ensure that its security operations do not impede parliamentarians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. As all hon. members know, the time for government orders expires at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, and normally at this time we would proceed to private members' business.

The Chair appreciates that this is an important matter, not only for the member for Saint-Lambert but also for many other members. The Chair also understands that there may be other hon. members who would like to make presentations or representations related to this question of privilege. The Chair can assure the hon. member for Saint-Lambert, as well as others, that a ruling on this question of privilege will not be delivered today and will not be delivered first thing on Monday morning.

Given that we are about to start private members' business, if the member and others are willing, this conversation could be continued on Monday when the House resumes. As all hon. members know, the time for private members' business is limited and typically there is a sense in the House that we try to get to private members' business. Therefore, the Chair would ask the hon. member for Saint-Lambert to wrap up her remarks in a few seconds for today, with the expectation those can be continued next week before the Speaker returns his ruling.

The hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for all of the attention you have given to this matter.

As I was saying at the beginning of this discussion, I was truly shocked to learn that our members—because there were several of them—were prevented from coming to the House to do their duty. I think that your attention to this matter is necessary, but above all, it shows how important this is. Thank you.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:33 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against a bill that will undermine the safety and security of Canadians. The Conservative government wants to simplify firearms storage and transportation regulations to ensure that low-velocity rifles and air guns are not considered as firearms. However, the NDP has the safety of Canadians at heart. That is why we refuse to support a bill that could compromise that safety.

More specifically, this bill will create even more dangerous working conditions for police officers. There could be confusion between ordinary firearms and air guns, which will make it harder for law enforcement agencies to do their job. This bill will result in more accidents and mistakes that will be front-page news and for which the government will be responsible.

The government must consult industry representatives instead of running the show on its own. These representatives will tell them what they told us: they do not understand this legislation, it is completely useless since the current system works well without any major problems, and they are especially concerned about the working conditions of police officers.

This is more doublespeak from the Conservatives, who claim to be ardent defenders of security. However, for 2014-15, they voted to reduce the operating budget of the Canada Border Services Agency, which led to the elimination of 1,351 positions. The same goes for the RCMP, which saw $32.5 million in cuts. These cuts greatly hinder the work of our security forces.

As usual, this government has a double standard. First, it scares Canadians by raising the spectre of crime for electioneering purposes. Then, it cuts the budgets of our police services and make it easier to transport weapons. Canadians are no fools and they absolutely do not want a bill that will threaten their safety. In the end, the Conservatives really do not care about the safety of Canadians; they always act too late.

They have proven this many times and in many areas: in health, by refusing to take into account Quebec's rapidly aging population when calculating health transfer amounts and by voting against my bill calling for the mandatory disclosure of drug shortages; in infrastructure, where they do not understand the urgent need to increase the number of inspectors to ensure rail safety; and in food safety, by stubbornly refusing to add more health inspectors. Now, it is weapons.

The NDP refuses to play games with the lives of Canadians. That is why we will vote against this bill. I urge the Conservatives to think about the consequences this bill will have.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-637, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms storage and transportation), introduced by the hard-working member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

In relation to what was just said by the last speaker—that we have cut back—an additional $300 million have gone to Canada's security agencies and of them CBSA is one. Where we pulled these 1,000 jobs out of our hat, I cannot believe. As far as food safety inspectors go, each and every day 40 inspectors are at the former XL plant. Much of what was just said is fiction, and I do not know where it comes from.

However, on this side of the House we have been clear. We believe firearms policies should make sense and keep Canadians safe. In practice, that means we lock up criminals who use firearms and wreak havoc on our communities, but we eliminate needless red tape that does nothing to keep Canadians safe.

We have a strong record in this regard. It was our Conservative government that, for example, created tough new sentences for those engaging in drive-by or other reckless shootings. We have also taken action to reduce needless red tape, as I mentioned. Chief among those actions was ending the $2 billion boondoggle that was the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. We were pleased to end the needless bureaucratic mess once and for all, and we are pleased that all the data have now been deleted.

We have also tabled the common-sense firearms licensing act, which would crack down on dangerous individuals who should not have firearms, while reducing needless paperwork. Individuals from all walks of life have come out in support of this important legislation. We have heard support from hunters, trappers, fishers and sport shooters. We have also heard support from the law enforcement community and former Olympians.

Despite what the Liberals and New Democrats would have us believe, there is a strong consensus that we must support these Canadian heritage activities.

That brings me to the bill before us today.

Currently, an individual can face jail time for storing a paintball, BB gun or pellet gun without “reasonable caution”. That may seem like common sense, but the devil is always in the details. What does “reasonable caution” mean? Does it mean in a cabinet? Does it mean out of reach of a child? Does it mean a trigger guard or lock and cases such as that? Or does it mean something completely different? It is impossible to know because the term is not defined.

I encourage all Canadians listening at home to safely store their pellet guns, their BB guns and their air rifles, just because it is a good example that we can show our children when they become of an age when they can possess a firearm, because they get to form good habits. However, I do not believe it is reasonable that people could spend jail time for not doing so.

Let me give an example. My riding is in a rural area. It would not be uncommon for one of my constituents to take an air gun or a BB gun, put it in a backpack or walk down into the woods or a ravine to shoot some pop cans off a tree stump. Target practising is one of those things we do, either for straight enjoyment or to prepare ourselves for hunting or for some friendly competition, for instance like a turkey shoot.

Individuals today are at risk of running afoul of the Criminal Code if they should do so. That is why Bill C-637 is so very important. I cannot put too fine a point on this. There are up to two years in prison for careless storage of a BB gun. How many members of the House could be caught keeping a BB gun in the closet or at the cottage? This law, as written, simply does not make sense.

Bill C-637 would put forward the same exemptions that prevent owners of paintball guns and pellet rifles from requiring a licence and would apply these exemptions to the Criminal Code offences relating to storage and transportation. This only makes sense. These items are clearly not firearms. They are not treated as firearms under the Firearms Act; they should not be treated as firearms under the Criminal Code. However, the bill would maintain the ability for someone to be charged criminally for careless use of a firearm. This is an important point to remember.

Members on the other side of the House have repeatedly said that this bill is unsafe, that it would lead to the unsafe use of pellet guns, and so on. This is simply not true. I grew up using a BB gun. It is what I used before I was old enough to use a legal firearm. I was taught the appropriate respect for and the power that firearms have, and the BB gun was an introduction as to how to properly handle a firearm. My father was quite fastidious about that.

With the law written as it currently is, it dissuades individuals from wanting to use air rifles. The threat of criminal charges for simply making a mistake will turn many people off. When I and members who are pretty close to my age were younger, BB guns were a very common thing and today there is a resurgence. Perhaps this is exactly the intent of the other parties. We all remember former Liberal cabinet minister Allan Rock, who said that he came to Ottawa with the firm belief that only police and the military should have access to firearms. We on this side of the House clearly disagree.

Hunting is a part of our heritage. Sport shooting is a part of our heritage. Using pellet guns and BB guns is part of our heritage. These sports are very important to what it means to be Canadian. On this side of the House, we will always stand with law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters.

I am pleased to note that support for this legislation has been expressed by groups from coast to coast, including the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, as well as the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. This legislation would continue our safe and sensible approach to firearms rules in Canada, and I am pleased to support it.

I continue to hope that members opposite will drop their ideological opposition to any measures that reduce the needless red tape for law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters. Given that both the Liberals and NDP have expressed a desire to bring back the long gun registry, I am not terribly hopeful, but I know that two million licensed Canadian gun owners will not forget the actions of these parties come this October.