Debates of Jan. 25th, 2021

Business of the House

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There have been discussions among the parties, and I believe that, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, until Wednesday, June 23, 2021:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House are counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) any reference in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(f) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) during Routine Proceedings, members who participate remotely may table documents or present petitions or reports to the House electronically, provided that the documents are transmitted to the Clerk prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the Clerk electronically;

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to motions relating to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and (18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday, provided that, if a recorded division on the previous question is deferred and the motion is subsequently adopted, the recorded division on the original question shall not be deferred;

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred on a Wednesday governed by this order, to no later than the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, or to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(l) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(m) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(n) until such a time as a remote voting application is ready to use, recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person and by roll call for members participating by videoconference, provided that members participating by videoconference must have their camera on for the duration of the vote;

(o) in relation to the development of a remote voting application, the House administration be directed to begin the onboarding process of all members as soon as possible and conduct two comprehensive simulations with all members being invited to attend;

(p) after the two simulations outlined in paragraph (o) have been completed and after the Speaker has received a notice from the House leaders of all recognized parties in the House stating that they are satisfied that the remote voting application is ready to be used, starting the next sitting day and concluding on Wednesday, June 23, 2021, the Speaker shall so inform the House and recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada through the House of Commons electronic voting application using the member's House-managed mobile device and the member's personal House of Commons account, and that each vote requires visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person task precedence,

(iv) any technical issues encountered by:

(A) members of recognized parties shall be brought to the attention of their respective whip, and that whip may then rise before the results are announced to indicate to the Speaker the voting intention of the identified members of their party,

(B) members not part of a recognized party shall be brought to the attention of the Speaker and the member shall immediately confirm to the Speaker how they cast their vote, before the results are announced,

(v) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vi) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(vii) any question to be resolved by a secret ballot be excluded from this order; and

(q) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference and witnesses shall participate remotely, provided that the priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or "on division", all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filled with the clerk of each committee by email, and

r) that, following the adoption of this order, the sitting be suspended to the call of the Chair to permit members to participate by videoconference, and, when the sitting resumes, the House shall proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business for a maximum of one hour.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify something.

I first want to say that I am pleased to be here with my colleagues to work on behalf of all Canadians.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that paragraph j) of the motion brought forward by the minister that we just agreed to adopt states the following:

j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to motions relating to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84....

When the minister was reading it earlier she said, “relating to the project debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84”.

I would like the minister to confirm whether we are talking about a “budget” or a “project”.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is on the standing order.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be even more specific.

The minister has the text in front of her. Let us look at paragraph j), which is on line 6. The minister read the word “project”, but the text we agreed to adopt uses the word “budget”. I believe the minister said “project”, but the word should have been “budget”. Could she just clarify that she meant to say “budget”?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, “budget” is the right word.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to)

Suspension of Sitting

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We will suspend for five to ten minutes to let members join the sitting virtually.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:19 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 11:28 a.m.)

Message from the Senate

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

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S‑2, An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

The House resumed from October 27, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (possession of unlawfully imported firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today as Parliament resumes its work. I hope that you had a good holiday. It is nice to see you again, Madam Speaker.

I am very pleased to speak to gun control, an issue that has broad consensus in Quebec. I thank my colleague from Markham—Unionville for his work and for introducing this bill that seeks to amend the Criminal Code to imposes harsher sentences on those who unlawfully import firearms.

I will begin by sharing the Bloc Québécois' criticisms of Bill C‑238. I will also take this opportunity to point out that the Liberal government made commitments to prohibit all military-style assault rifles, ban semi-automatic assault rifles and give municipalities the authority to ban handguns. Those commitments have been slow to materialize.

It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois supports stricter gun control, especially for handguns. The vast majority of Quebeckers agree. This bill needs to be studied in committee, but we do have some concerns, which I will come back to.

We all want to combat violence, and more specifically gun violence. Given the dire consequences, there is no excuse for the Canadian government's complacent attitude towards gun control.

I want to talk about a few deeply disturbing stories.

“A troubled, hate-filled young man was able to kill six people, seriously wound five and traumatize 25 others for life, including four children, in less than two minutes, because he had easy access to firearms. This is what someone armed with a Glock pistol and five 10-round magazines can do.” That is a quote from the co-founder of the Quebec City mosque, about the massacre that happened there on January 29, 2017. Everyone remembers that tragic day in Quebec's capital city.

What we find so very upsetting is that the weapon used was acquired legally. The legal availability of handguns has not changed even though a September 2019 Angus Reid poll showed that 72% of Quebeckers want more restrictions on access to handguns.

There has been no progress despite the fact that seven out of 10 Canadians support a handgun ban. The federal government could have been expected to take this statistic more seriously. Moreover, there has been no progress despite Statistics Canada data showing that the number of gun homicides grew steadily from 2016 to 2019, an increase that closely tracked the dismantling of measures—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia because the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the interpreter has indicated twice that the sound quality is not good enough for her to interpret. Maybe we could look into getting that fixed.

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

We have to check the sound quality because the interpreter is having a hard time hearing the member. I see that the hon. member has her headphones and microphone on. Is everything plugged in?

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the interpreter also indicated that there are other people who are not muted, which is making it difficult for the interpreters to hear.

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

I would like to remind all members participating virtually that they have to mute their microphone so that the interpreters can hear only the person speaking.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

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

There has been no progress despite data from Statistics Canada showing that the number of gun homicides increased every year between 2016 and 2019 and that this surge in homicides tracks closely with the Harper government's major dismantling of control measures starting in 2012.

In a letter sent to the Minister of Public Safety in November 2019, relatives of victims of the shootings at the Polytechnique, Dawson College, and the Quebec City mosque, as well as the father of a police officer killed in the line of duty, unanimously called on the Liberal government to implement an immediate moratorium on the sale of assault weapons and a permanent ban on the importation and manufacture of handguns.

As members know, in August 2018, Montreal city council passed a motion calling on the federal government to ban assault weapons and handguns. The mayor of Montreal, Valérie Plante, stated at the time that approximately 30% of violent crimes committed between 2013 and 2016 involved a weapon and that two-thirds of these were handguns. Despite all these good reasons to take action to more broadly limit access to weapons, gun violence continues to be widespread on our streets. Bill C‑238 specifically seeks to amend the Criminal Code to impose tougher penalties on those who illegally import firearms, with minimum sentences of three years for a first offence and five years or more for repeat offences.

Increasing the length of minimum sentences is a good thing, but we are concerned that this will unfortunately not have a marked impact on the importation of illegal weapons. More importantly, we are concerned that it will not have a significant impact on reducing violence in our communities.

The Conservatives' desire to address the issue of access to firearms is legitimate, but is it genuine? Unfortunately, history has shown us otherwise. My concern is that a bill like this one could be used as a justification for refusing to support broader restrictions on military-style assault weapons and handguns.

Although organized crime groups often use imported or stolen weapons, and I strongly believe we need to address this issue, a large number of violent crimes are committed with weapons that were legally imported or obtained, as was the case with the attacks at the Quebec City mosque, Dawson College, the former Métropolis and École Polytechnique in Montreal. At the end of the day, if we want to stop such massacres from happening, we need to ban handguns and military-style assault rifles, which exist only to kill human beings and have no place in our society.

How are they still allowed in this country? How have successive federal governments ignored calls from Quebeckers and Canadians to ban these weapons, which are designed to slaughter human beings and carry out unspeakable acts of violence? The government has made promises in the past.

In September 2019, the Prime Minister said that assault weapons, like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifles used in many massacres in recent years, would be banned if Canadians re-elected the Liberal Party. He also said that a Liberal government would work with the provinces to empower municipalities to ban handguns.

This is meant to be a cautious approach, but the government has yet to follow through. We have to wonder how cautious an approach can be if people continue to have access to such deadly weapons after Quebec and the rest of Canada have experienced—

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

I am sorry to have to interrupt the member again, but there seems to be a problem with an echo.

When I speak French, do the members hear the interpretation well?

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has done everything she can. All I can do is ask her to speak more slowly for the rest of her speech in hopes that that will help the interpreters.

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

I am so sorry, Madam Speaker.

We are in the midst of a crisis, a pandemic, and countless people have been victims of the deadly combination of increased violence and greater psychological distress. If the Liberal government truly wanted to do the responsible thing about firearms, now would be the time.

Tougher restrictions should have been implemented a long time ago. It is time to take action. Bill C‑238 may not look like it would have a negative impact on efforts to control firearm usage, but it does not fix the problem. Sadly, it is not the answer we are seeking to a much bigger problem. The government cannot and must not allow itself to believe that this kind of measure counts as taking action on gun control. This measure is a sneaky and downright dishonest response to the pleas of thousands of families whose loved ones were collateral victims of shootings that have happened over the years in our communities, whether the weapons involved were legally imported or not.

We would of course like to see this bill sent to committee for study. I hope the other opposition parties will be supportive and that the government will work with us to bring in broader, more restrictive measures, because the safety of our fellow citizens is at stake.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish everyone a happy new year. It is very good to be here in the House again virtually, and I certainly hope that 2021 will be much better than 2020.

Today I am here to speak about Bill C-238, a bill that talks about the possession of unlawfully imported firearms.

I represent a rural riding. I grew up in a household where several of my family members were legal gun owners. They followed the rules, and I was taught gun safety as a matter of respect. I grew up eating wild meat, and hunting was a significant part of my family life.

I have met with many legal gun owners in my riding who have talked about the frustration they feel about the rules always focusing on them rather than addressing their legitimate concerns about illegal guns and how they get into our communities. This is such an important subject.

I have also heard from constituents across Canada who are very concerned about gun violence in their communities. We heard a couple of examples earlier today. We look at the realities of domestic violence when guns are used and the awful violence we have seen across Canada, and I believe that all Canadians really want to see this addressed.

Today I am here to specifically discuss the bill before us, which would amend section 96 of the Criminal Code to impose a mandatory sentence of three years for possession of a firearm known to be illegally imported to Canada, increase the maximum sentence from 10 to 14 years and a few others things. This is an offence that I agree should be taken very seriously. In fact, an amendment like this to the Criminal Code would be something I could discuss and agree to. However, this bill is written in a way that will lead it to follow the same path a similar bill did in 2013, and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled it unconstitutional.

I have worked with the House of Commons legislative team to write several pieces of legislation. This is a lot of hard work, and I know that the amazing folks here provide feedback about what will work and what may have some potential challenges for the legal system in Canada. I am very curious about why the member has brought forward legislation that is unconstitutional, when the need to bring forward laws to improve this gap is so very important. I am not interested in supporting legislation that will be defeated in the Supreme Court of Canada, cost a lot of taxpayer dollars and not support the safety of communities.

Not too long ago, I met with a group of gun owners in my riding. It was a very informative meeting, and what I heard repeatedly were two main points: One, when we look at gun policy in Canada, we must have a renewed focus on keeping illegal guns out of our country; and two, we need more education in Canada about the strong rules we have around guns, which would allow people to better understand the rules and hopefully create a sense of increased safety. I will address both of these points today.

I agree that keeping illegal guns out of Canada must be something we see an increased investment in. Between 2011 and 2015, we saw the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, under the previous Conservative government, cut over 1,000 positions. This is important because it has left a significant gap in the capacity of CBSA to do the work to reduce the number of guns being smuggled into Canada illegally. This concerns me greatly.

About two years ago, a constituent invited me to come to the shooting range with him in the riding. He wanted to showcase the rules and how he followed them. I agreed so that I could learn the realities of these folks in my region.

The first thing he told me was that I would have to come to his house to ride with him, as he could not stop his vehicle to pick me up with a gun in his vehicle. The rules in Canada meant that he had to go straight to the range. At his home, he showed me the way he stored his guns, separate from ammunition and with everything locked away. He also showed me how guns were safely transported. I learned a lot that day, and I really appreciate the time he took with me.

He also shared that he felt very concerned about gun violence in Canada. He knew that the things that had happened across our country, that had seen people killed and had brought fear to our communities, were very concerning and needed to be addressed in a meaningful way. He also felt that the majority of gun owners follow the rules very carefully. Figuring out how to identify the ones that did not and stopping the movement of illegal guns were his main priorities.

In 2018, our leader wrote a letter to the Prime Minister challenging the government to address the root causes of gun violence in our communities, the key things that really should be addressed in a meaningful way, such as poverty, substantive housing, and addressing people before they get to a place where violence has become an everyday reality. He also asked the PM to increase supports to the CBSA to give it the capacity to stem the illegal flow of guns from the United States into our country. What have Canadians seen? At this point, the Liberals have only returned 200 positions of the 1,000 the Conservatives cut. That is simply not enough.

I also want to say that I agree with my constituents and the idea that Canadians need to better understand the rules legal gun owners follow in this country. A few years back, I took a course required for Canadians to receive their possession and acquisition licence. Sid Nielsen, a constituent of mine, has been teaching this course for many years and has done a fantastic job.

My classmates were a wide variety of people. I remember one in particular was a woman who had no plan to ever use a gun, but her husband owned several, and they wanted to make sure that, if anything happened to him, she could follow the rules of keeping the guns safe. I think this speaks to a really important point, which is that there are many important stories of how people are trying to be safe in Canada.

It is time to take a stand that is meaningful. I hope this member takes the intent that I believe he meant and creates legislation that is actually constitutional, so we can start to address in a meaningful way how to stop illegal guns from coming into our country.

I also hope to continue to push the Prime Minister to make sure that our communities are safer and provide more resources where they are needed in the front lines to stop gun violence and also to make sure that we have more CBSA agents to stem the flow of illegal guns into Canada. Gun violence is very scary. I think when Canadians across this country look at some of the terrible realities we have faced, we want to make sure that the laws are there to protect us all. Let us work on that together.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the possession of unlawfully imported firearms. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, for his thoughtful and hard work on this critical issue.

I am extremely proud to represent the people of South Surrey—White Rock and to call this beautiful part of our great nation my home, but despite the many great things about this vibrant, wholesome community, my constituents and I share a growing concern about gang-related gun violence on our streets. Over the holidays, tragedy struck our community and nearby. On December 28, Tequel Willis was shot eight times as he exited a taxi in Surrey. Tequel was 14 years old. He was pronounced dead on the scene. He is believed to be the youngest-ever victim of gang violence in B.C.

A day earlier, emergency services responded to a call for help in Surrey and found 19-year-old Harman Singh Dhesi with gunshot wounds. He later died in hospital. Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. In a four-day stretch earlier this month, 28-year-old Dilraj Johal from Surrey was found dead with gunshot wounds in neighbouring Richmond; Anees Mohammed, 29, was shot and killed in Steveston Community Park, which is in a riding close to mine; and Gary Kang, 24, was gunned down in his parents' Surrey home, which is actually very close to where I live. Something needs to be done to address this grim reality.

Our hard-working Canadian border agents who process around 100 million travellers annually have seized more than 4,200 guns at the border since 2014, but despite their best efforts, which I commend them for, experts believe many smuggled guns go undetected. While it is difficult to know exactly how many firearms get through customs illegally, some estimates suggest 70% or more of crime guns in Canada are smuggled in. We also know that two in five homicides committed in Canada in 2019 were committed with a firearm, 60% of which were handguns.

I am concerned not only because of the recent violence in my community, but also because my Lower Mainland riding shares a border with the United States. Along that border are two legal border crossings, Douglas and Pacific Highway. My community is also home to the Peace Arch Provincial Park, which runs along the border and allows visitors from both sides to visit without officially making entry into the neighbouring country. In addition to the southern border, B.C. shares a second border with Alaska, and the harbours along our Pacific coast receive international shipments every day.

Our neighbours to the south are our closest allies, our biggest trading partner and, in many cases, our friends and family, but the fact remains that it is much easier to access guns south of the border and too many of those guns are winding up on Canadian soil. That is why I support my Conservative colleague's private member's bill to increase the penalties for the possession of unlawfully imported firearms. Bill C-238 would address the problem in two ways: by increasing mandatory sentencing and making it more difficult for persons charged to be released on bail.

Let us first consider the mandatory sentencing. If one is prosecuted by indictment, this bill would raise the minimum sentence for possessing an unlawfully imported firearm that the person knows was obtained by the commission of a crime from one to three years, and the maximum sentence from 10 years to 14 years. Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out six objectives for sentencing. The first three are (a) denouncing unlawful conduct, (b) deterring offenders and (c) separating offenders from society. The increased sentences under Bill C-238 would accomplish all three.

The longer sentences would make clear to all Canadians that the possession of a smuggled firearm is a serious offence that will not be tolerated, effectively denouncing the activity in the clearest of terms. The threat of an increased penalty would deter some criminals from possessing these smuggled arms. This deterrence, in effect, should also affect the supply chain. Less demand for smuggled guns should mean less smuggled guns in the first place. As for separating offenders from society, those convicted of this dangerous crime would be kept off the streets for longer, ensuring that they are unable to commit additional, potentially dangerous, crimes.

Last October, the NDP member for St. John's East argued, as did the member for North Island—Powell River today, that the mandatory minimums in this bill are unconstitutional. Both members pointed to the 2015 Supreme Court decision in R. v. Nur.

In that case, the court struck down the minimum sentence for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with access to ammunition, but the law in that case is distinguishable from the bill at hand.

In Nur, Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for the majority, reasoned that the three-year minimum sentence for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with access to ammunition violated section 12 of the charter as cruel and unusual punishment, because when applied not to the actual facts of that case but to reasonably foreseeable facts, the sentence would not fit the crime.

One reasonably foreseeable scenario the court used as a hypothetical was “the licensed and responsible gun owner who stores his unloaded firearm safely with ammunition nearby, but makes a mistake as to where it can be stored.” The court explained that in this reasonably foreseeable hypothetical, the minimum sentence would be grossly disproportionate to the crime. According to the court, the “bottom line” was that the possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with access to ammunition offence “foreseeably catches licensing offences that involve little or no moral fault and little or no danger to the public. For these offences three years' imprisonment is grossly disproportionate to a fit and fair sentence.”

Clearly, the court's reasoning in Nur would not apply here. The possession of an illegal smuggled firearm that the accused knows was obtained through crime is not a mere licensing offence involving no moral fault or danger to the public. There is no reasonably foreseeable scenario in which someone, by licensing error or otherwise, accidentally violates the law against possession of a smuggled firearm that they knew was illegally obtained. To the contrary, these are guns that are bought and sold on the black market with their serial numbers shaved off, used in the commission of dangerous crimes. The mandatory minimums in the bill, I believe, are both constitutional and warranted.

The bill would also subject those charged with possession of a smuggled firearm to reverse-onus bail. For most crimes, the onus at the bail hearing is on the prosecution to show why the accused should be detained. However, subsection 515(6) would provide that for several enumerated crimes, this onus would be reversed, and instead the accused would have to show why they should be released.

Under the current scheme, several firearm-related offences already call for reverse-onus bail. This includes weapons trafficking and possession for purposes of weapons trafficking.

As mentioned earlier, my community has recently experienced a spike in gun violence, with victims tragically as young as 14 years old. As a member of Parliament and mother, there is no higher moral obligation for me than the need to keep our children and communities safe. Simply put, this bill would make my community and many like it across Canada safer places to live. That is why I support Bill C-238 and urge other members to do the same.