House of Commons Hansard #307 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was firearms.

Topics

Opposition Motion—United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

It being 7 p.m., it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Opposition Motion—United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Opposition Motion—United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion—United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion—United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion—United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Opposition Motion—United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, we ask that the division be deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 5, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Opposition Motion—United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29 the division stands deferred until June 5, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Main Estimates 2018-19—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 25, 2018, by the member for Elmwood—Transcona concerning the rights of members.

In raising his question of privilege, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona alleged that in terminating his arguments related to his point of order on the procedural propriety of vote 40 under Treasury Board in the main estimates, the Chair breached his privileges by casting aspersions on his motives for raising the point of order. The member assured the House that in raising the point of order, he was not prompted by any ulterior motive. He asked that the actions taken by the Chair be found to be a prima facie breach of privilege that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs might examine the issue.

It is well established that when making a case on either questions of privilege or points of order, members are expected to make brief presentations on the issue being raised. The Chair, once satisfied that sufficient information has been given, may inform the member accordingly. The Chair may then rule immediately or take the matter under advisement.

As I indicated when the point of order was first raised, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 638, “Under the Standing Orders, a brief presentation of arguments on the point of order is possible at the Speaker’s discretion.”

Acting Speaker Devolin explained this well on June 13, 2012, at page 9374 of the Debates, when he stated, “...the floor is not the members' until they choose to stop. The Speaker has a right to terminate that discussion...That is left to the judgment of the Speaker.” This is to say that members do not have unlimited time to speak.

Additionally, once the Speaker has ruled or determined that sufficient information has been presented, it is not in keeping with our practices that members use new points of order, for it can be perceived as undermining and questioning the authority of the Chair.

In the present case, the charge that the member for Elmwood—Transcona brought forward as a question of privilege cannot be seen as anything other than a challenge to this authority. Bosc and Gagnon at page 641 is clear:

A Member may not rise on a point of order to discuss a matter which the Speaker has already ruled was not a question of privilege or to raise a matter as a question of privilege after the Speaker has ruled that it was not a point of order.

To be clear, our procedural practices and traditions prohibit the use of questions of privilege or points of order in this fashion precisely so that the authority of the Chair is not casually or repeatedly challenged.

I also want to take a moment to address the events of May 25 more generally. The proceedings that day were disorderly to a degree rarely seen. As the speaker, I am called upon to be the guardian of the rights and privileges of all members and of the House; with this comes a responsibility to preserve order and decorum. Standing Order 10 clearly sets this out: “The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In deciding a point of order or practice, the Speaker shall state the Standing Order or other authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.”

In conjunction with this, it is important to remember, as my predecessor explained, at page 15799 of the Debates, on April 23, 2013, that:

...members elect a Speaker from among the membership to apply rules they themselves have devised and can amend. Thus, it is only with the active participation of the members themselves that the Speaker, who requires the support and goodwill of the House in order to carry out the duties of the office, can apply the rules.

Thus, the Speaker's authority can be effectively exercised only with the full support of all member of this House. It is in the interest of the House as an institution that members behave in a way that ensures that its deliberations are carried out properly and respectfully. It is incumbent on all of us to protect the reputation of the House of Commons and to conduct ourselves in such a way that we do not diminish it in the eyes of our fellow citizens.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs also undertook a study on order and decorum back in 2007. Conclusions stemming from the committee's 37th report should guide all of us in this place, as it stated:

The Speaker’s authority can only be exercised if he or she has the support and guidance of all parties and each Member of the House. The recognized parties in the House undertake to assist the Speaker in this regard, and not to undermine his decisions. It is incumbent upon all of us, as Members of the House, to support the Speaker in this regard. We strongly believe that it is in the interests of the House as an institution with a long and important history, and as the elected representatives of the people of Canada, that the Speaker and all Members do what is necessary to ensure that the House is viewed as a place worthy of respect and admiration.

As Speaker, I have found that what is necessary to do is not always easy, predictable, or straightforward. In other words, it is not an exact science. In fact, it is an imperfect one. The Chair understands this is equally true of what members must face, given the context in which we work. Decisions and responses of the Chair must be firmly guided by what the House has authorized as its rules and practices and, more important, what it feels is in the House's best interest in the short and long term. At the same time, these decisions are often borne in response to immediate, new, and evolving situations.

In marrying these two realities, the Chair endeavours at all times to guide the House through its deliberations in a fair manner, one that respects members individually and collectively. While the different roles and different responsibilities of members and the Chair may seem at times hard to balance, I, as Speaker and as an elected representative, firmly believe that together we are still working in pursuit of this shared objective as described in the 2017 report of the procedure and House affairs committee.

As your Speaker, I am your servant, and I preside over the proceedings based upon the rules that you have given me. We are used to robust and heated debate. I have every confidence that while in this case there is no prima facie question of privilege, we have found a productive and respective way to continue our important work.

I thank all honourable members for their attention.

[For continuation of proceedings see Part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from Part A]

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present, in both official languages, the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, entitled “Main Estimates 2018-19”.

Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 64th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled “Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment Between Members”.

I would like to thank all the witnesses from the private sector, who appeared before the committee, for their valuable input. I would also like to thank our law clerk and parliamentary counsel, Philippe Dufresne, and chief human resources officer, Pierre Parent, for the excellent support they provided throughout the process. The following staff and their offices also contributed significantly to the development of the revised code: Carolyn LeCheminant-Chandy, Wendy Gordon, Alexandra Schorah, Gisèle Isimbi, Charles Feldman, Sarah Pentney, Jean-François Martin, Valérie Boudreau, Myriam Beauparlant, Sophie Hart, and Marc Gagnon.

I would like to congratulate the members of the committee. People think it is an excellent report. The members worked totally in a non-partisan fashion to come up with this report.

Citizenship and ImmigrationCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Main Estimates 2018-19: Vote 1 under Immigration and Refugee Board”.

Canada Elections ActRoutine Proceedings

June 4th, 2018 / 7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-406, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (foreign contributions).

Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to stand in my place. This is the third time in four parliaments that I have been able to have a private member's business item. I am taking this opportunity to address something that every patriot in Canada ought to be concerned about, which is the influence of foreign money coming into third-party organizations and advertising during our federal election campaigns.

I am certainly glad to have a seconder, my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, who is also very knowledgeable on this issue. I look forward to the healthy debate on this most important piece of private members' business.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71Routine Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, the Committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

I am extremely pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this motion. We are asking for this travel time for a number of reasons. First, our Liberal friends reduced to a minimum the number of committee meetings to debate this bill. Several stakeholders have not received an invitation to appear, including first nations, unfortunately.

Are we to believe that it did not occur to the Prime Minister, who says that his government is inclusive, open and transparent, to consult first nations on the new gun registry that he wants to introduce? Who hunts as much as the first nations? Who is as close to nature as the first nations? Who relies on guns for their subsistence as much as the first nations?

I cannot stay silent on this subject while the Liberals stubbornly persist in the belief that they can reduce crime with a bill that does not even go after criminals. This is unbelievable. They obviously have not learned a thing from their past mistakes.

Young people and new Canadians who were not here when the Jean Chrétien Liberals introduced the gun registry may not know that the idea was not only poorly conceived, but also an attack on law-abiding Canadians. When the initiative was launched, the minister said it would cost about $2 million, but it ended up costing almost $2 billion.

The Conservatives of Canada believe that the safety of Canadians must be the top priority of any government. The Liberals are not to be trusted when it comes to firearms legislation. Instead of cracking down on criminals, they treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals.

When we were in office from 2006 to 2015, we worked tirelessly to keep Canadians safe. We made promises and we kept them. For example, we passed the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, which simplified the licensing regime while strengthening firearms possession prohibitions for people convicted of domestic violence offences.

Furthermore, we passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which provides for mandatory prison sentences for serious firearms offences and stricter bail provisions for those accused of serious offences involving firearms.

We also passed the Act to amend the Criminal Code regarding organized crime and protection of justice system participants, which provides police officers and judges with new tools to fight organized crime, including new sentences for the reckless use of a firearm.

These are just some of the measures we took.

The government is already halfway through its mandate, and it is faltering. It lacks courage to keep its promises. The proposed legislation does not contain a single measure to deal with the criminal and unauthorized possession of firearms, nor does it address gang violence. The Liberals think that violence and gun crimes can be fixed by going after law-abiding citizens instead of combatting gangs and organized crime.

For the most part, this bill does little to nothing to improve public safety. However, it imposes a number of new conditions on law-abiding gun owners. On this side of the House, we know that law-abiding citizens are not the problem.

I can give other examples of promises the Liberals have made on firearms issues that have either been broken or simply remain unfulfilled. For instance, they promised the provinces and territories $100 million a year to help fight the illegal firearms trade. Where is that money?

On top of that, the Liberals have yet to implement the marking regulations on imported firearms, even though they promised to do so as soon as they took office.

The Liberals have also forgotten their promise to invest in technologies that would help customs officers detect and intercept illegal arms entering Canada from the United States.

Those are some concrete gun control measures. I would urge the government to leave hunters and sport shooters alone.

Finally, the Liberals promised they would not bring back the long gun registry, and yet that is exactly what they are doing with Bill C-71.

Yes, the wording of the bill opens the door to another registry. It is very subtle, but what is proposed is very clear.

As I said earlier, the bill does nothing to deal with street gangs, trace illegal weapons coming into the country, or combat organized crime. The Prime Minister needs to decide who the real threat is. Is it street gangs or farmers? Is it sport shooters or organized crime?

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71Routine Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

An hon. member

It is the farmers they are going after.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71Routine Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Yes, sir.

To Canadians, the problem is obvious. Why is the government wasting so many resources to control law-abiding citizens? Why is the Prime Minister obsessed with a segment of the population that has always obeyed the law? In one way or another, the Prime Minister has demonstrated a clear lack of judgment in this regard.

I have another example. I recently read an article in the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil about what is known as the dark web. Journalist Jim Bronskill explained that criminals are hiding in the darker corners of the Internet, using cryptocurrencies that are hard to trace and coming up with ways to illegally sell firearms in Canada. The RCMP and the media are aware of this, and I am sure the Minister of Public Safety is too. However, Bill C-71 contains no measures to combat that crime. Why?

That is one of the reasons why we are saying that Bill C-71 should be studied. The time for debate in the House at second reading was cut short and the bill was sent to committee. The Conservatives asked for at least 21 witnesses and it would have taken seven meetings to complete the work. That was cut down to four meetings and seven witnesses.

Right now, everything is being done to keep us from doing our job properly. The Liberals are doing this so they can claim that the Conservatives do not want to talk about firearms, because they do not want to hear about how they are wrong. What they say is not true. We are law-abiding people, and we work with law-abiding people. Talking about firearms does not prevent us from doing our job. The Liberals are preventing us from doing our job.

Bill C-71 includes no legislation that would tackle criminals, and its preamble contains misleading statements, such as the alarming crime statistics cited by the Minister of Public Safety. When he tabled the bill, the minister claimed there had been a major increase in crime in Canada, but the figures he was using as his benchmark were from 2013. The crime rate has remained fairly consistent over the past 15 years. In 2013, a Conservative government was in office, and crime was very low. The minister used those numbers to claim that crime increased in 2014 and 2015. That is some numbers fudging worthy of a clever accountant. He tried to influence public opinion by claiming there had been an increase, which is completely false.

There are several signs that the government only wants to pass the law as quickly as possible, before the end of the parliamentary session, to boast that it has done something about firearms and that it has done good work. In reality, it is doing absolutely nothing other than penalizing hunters and sport shooters. We said this when the bill was introduced. Now that it has been studied in committee, I stand by that. That is why we need to travel across Canada to consult Canadians, especially first nations.

First nations have said that they are completely opposed to this bill at present. They are even saying that it might be unconstitutional. They claim that they were not consulted and that the law does not apply to them.

There is therefore a major problem. As the public safety critic, I cannot fathom or agree to voting on a bill that will once again affect honest citizens. Criminals will not be affected. Indigenous peoples will not be consulted and will rightly complain that the bill is unconstitutional. Why was the work not done properly the first time? There must be adequate consultation and the work must not be done willy-nilly.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71Routine Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it is a bit disappointing that the Conservative opposition continues to try to convince Canadians that something is happening with Bill C-71, when in fact nothing is happening in regard to any type of a long-gun registry. The Conservatives continue to attempt to fool Canadians. They are out of touch with the reality and expectations of Canadians in regard to the whole issue of Bill C-71.

Why does the Conservative Party continue to say this is about a gun registry when it is just not the case? We know that. Whether it is the minister, the parliamentary secretary, or members of the House, they have consistently said that the bill has nothing to do with a gun registry, yet the Conservatives time and time again try to convey an untruth.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71Routine Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for his tone, which is quieter than usual.

We are not trying to mislead Canadians. On the contrary, we have both feet on the ground. We have said from the start that the Liberals are doing nothing but upsetting hunters and sport shooters and doing nothing about criminals. After the handful of speeches we were able to make and the few committee meetings we had, it is clear that Bill C-71 makes it mandatory to register guns and provide reference numbers. That information will be entered into a computer of some business somewhere and then forwarded to the government.

If that is not a registry, then what is it? In the meantime, the government is doing nothing about the dark web or the real criminals who sell weapons or enter Canada illegally. That is what people are telling me does not work.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71Routine Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB

Madam Speaker, I am curious to know the member's perspective. We heard the Toronto Police Service say that Bill C-71 does not address gun crime directly. Could the member explain what he thinks the bill does and why the Liberals are in such a hurry to get it passed?

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71Routine Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I wish I had an answer for him, since the purpose of our motion and our presence here this evening is to call for more time to do things properly.

With the little time and few meetings we had, we were unable to get any responses providing justification for Bill C-71. I think this bill is a flash in the pan, fireworks in la-la land just to have Canadians believe that the Liberals are regulating guns and that they are good and nice people. Their bill is no good. We need time to make things right.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71Routine Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, this evening, we were hoping to debate Bill C-69. It is on the government's agenda. Why does my colleague and friend across believe that the Conservative Party voted for a number of hours today and then brought in a motion of this nature? It seems to me they do not want to debate Bill C-69. Do they support the bill or not?

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71Routine Proceedings

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Madam Speaker, I am not the leader of the opposition, I am the public safety critic. I am here to talk about Bill C-71 and the time I need to do my work on this topic. I would ask my colleague to direct that question to the appropriate person.