House of Commons Hansard #93 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was guns.

Topics

Hon. Member for Portage—LisgarOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to acknowledge the last speech by the member for Portage—Lisgar in her capacity as the interim leader of the Conservative Party.

We know that being the interim leader of a political party in the midst of a leadership race is a challenging and sometimes thankless role. It is an exercise that definitely requires tact, balance, and the ability to proceed with caution and to avoid committing the party to positions that are not official and that can change quickly. All of that must be done while also keeping the troops happy and united. It is all the more difficult when these concerns are not shared by the warring parties in the leadership race, who confront one another as ferocious adversaries and sometimes ignore the future consequences.

The member will undoubtedly agree with the great Jacques Parizeau, who said that politics is a “sea of toes” which one must avoid stepping on. Let us salute her efforts to navigate this stormy sea.

The member for Portage—Lisgar did an excellent job in her role as interim leader. She was at the helm of her party during the storm, without losing sight of the priorities of the people of Manitoba who put their trust in her. We wish her a good summer break. It is well deserved. We look forward to seeing her in her new parliamentary role, which will no doubt be a reflection of her dedication.

All the best to the leader of the opposition. See you in the fall.

Hon. Member for Portage—LisgarOral Questions

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize the contributions of the member for Portage—Lisgar.

The hon. member's record is an enviable one. Elected in 2018, the hon. member was re-elected in 2011, 2015, 2019 and 2021. She has also served in her time here in this place as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of state for social development, as the shadow minister of natural resources, as the opposition House leader, as deputy leader of the Conservative Party and of course now as the interim leader of the Conservative Party and Leader of the Opposition.

It is a tremendous record, and I am sure she is not done yet. Of course, these important roles do not cover her many other contributions to this place. One only has to learn about her family life and her motivation in entering politics to understand her drive to contribute to this place. She has also been an effective defender of her constituents' interests.

While we fundamentally disagree on many issues, I have much respect for the opposition leader. This place, and every other legislative body in this country, has a long way to go before being truly representative of Canadian society. In fact, the 2021 election was a record year for female members of Parliament, with 103 women elected to the 338-member House of Commons of Canada, and yet that is still just 30% in this chamber.

It is 30%, but I thank the member for her incredible work of showing leadership in what women in this place can do. I hope that as part of her ongoing legacy she would encourage more women to run in her party. We all would like to see them here in this place in every party. It is my hope that with every election, this chamber will become more representative of the communities we are elected to represent. I am sure the hon. member will continue to contribute in this place, if in a different capacity.

I would be remiss if I did not also thank her family, her spouse, her three children and two grandchildren for their capacity. We know how much they give to allow us to be here to do this work. It is a type of work that does not give us a lot of time, and I know the many sacrifices she has made, but I also know her dedication and her love for her family.

We cannot do our jobs effectively if we do not have the people who love us standing with us. I know she respects and honours their contribution to her place here in this House.

On behalf of all New Democrats, we thank her and wish her all the very best in the future.

Hon. Member for Portage—LisgarOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a hi and give an affectionate hug to the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar. Some in this place may be surprised by that, but when I was first elected in 2011, I remember exactly the moment I first hugged the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar. It was right after I had said that we were all going away for Christmas now and preparing for the birth of our Lord, and there was a very genuine affection between us that was immediate.

We do not have anything else in common—yes, we do. We have something else in common that I want to mention.

I also hugged her on another occasion. We hug a lot. It was when the Conservatives succeeded in passing a bill I did not want to see passed, a bill that killed the long-gun registry. I ran over to congratulate the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar because she, unlike so many in this place, did not go into politics because she had been a career door knocker, a political nerd wanting to someday be an MP. Her career path was more like mine. She cared about issues and she let caring about those issues bring her into politics to make a difference.

I know how devastated the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar must have been back in the 40th Parliament when her private member's bill, Bill C-391, failed. It would have gotten rid of the long-gun registry, but it came back once the Conservatives had a majority. There is something about commitment and persistence that resonates with people, whether they agree with the goal or not. I respect the persistence. I respect the integrity. I respect the fact that the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar is here because she cares about issues, not because she seeks personal power. I reflect on that with genuine care and affection and hope that someday she will agree with me on climate change.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Member for Portage—LisgarOral Questions

3:35 p.m.

Portage—Lisgar Manitoba

Conservative

Candice Bergen ConservativeLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, that was very, very nice. It is amazing how when we want to be kind in this place, we can be very kind. It is just a little dig. I got that one.

No, that was really kind of everyone, and I do want to thank my deputy leader. I want to thank the leader of the Bloc Party. I want to thank the member for North Island—Powell River and the House leader for the Green Party and the member for Waterloo for those very kind comments.

Elizabeth, we did hug another time, one that you do not remember. It was in the studios at CTV. I think a pipeline had just been approved, so it must not have been under the Liberal government, but a pipeline was approved and Elizabeth came in and she was devastated. I was pretty happy, but she saw me and she said “I need a hug. I can't believe this pipeline was approved.” Remember that one? Yes, so we may have hugged another time.

I am very humbled and I am grateful for all of the kind words. It has really been an honour of my life to lead my Conservative colleagues and our party over the last several months, and it is not over yet. As the deputy leader said, I am still the leader until September 10, but I know this part of my leadership is coming to an end here in the House of Commons.

It has been not only an honour; I have also really enjoyed it immensely. It has been incredible to work alongside each one of these amazing MPs around me to make decisions that we believe are the best decisions for the people of Canada and our party, and we have done that together.

The last several months have been very gratifying as I have watched our caucus and our party heal some rifts and come together and be in probably one of the strongest positions that we have been in for a very long time. We are over 600,000 memberships strong. As I said to my caucus many times, we are not always uniform in our ideas and our perspectives, but we are genuinely unified in our goals.

This caucus has been an incredible group to lead, and I want to thank them for putting their faith in me. I was not expecting to be the leader of the party and it all happened very fast, literally over the course of a few hours, and there was no recess or riding week to get ready.

The House of Commons sat the next day, and I and the people around me stepped into our roles without missing a beat, or at least trying not to miss a beat, during a bit of a tumultuous time in our caucus and actually in our country. It was a pretty difficult time in the country. I want to take a moment, if I could, to thank a few people who were especially helpful during that time.

First of all are my whip, my House leader and the leadership team around me who stepped into their roles and were just amazing and so supportive, and they are very good friends. They have been servant leaders. We hear that term “servant leadership”; I would say these individuals around me have been true servant leaders to our caucus and I am so grateful for what they have done.

I also want to say a big thanks to three of my Hill office staff members, Neal MacDonald, Kim Baker and Grace Gallien. They were not hired to work for the leader of the Conservative Party, but when that happened overnight, all three of them just stepped into these roles and were amazing, and I am just so grateful. I know they sacrificed a lot.

I also want to thank my riding staff, Deb Giblin and Colleen Kyle, who have not seen much of me in six months. They have kept things going very successfully in the riding, and I am very grateful for them.

I thank as well William Stairs, my chief of staff, and Nancy Heppner, my director of communications. William actually came out of retirement to, as he said, make sure the ship stayed afloat; Nancy left her family and her home in Saskatchewan to be here for the last six months, and that is a real sacrifice. I am very grateful for what they have done.

As members of Parliament and as leaders, we get the credit a lot. We are in the limelight, but is these people, our staff members, who put up with a lot and work hard, and I want to make sure that they get the credit today that they deserve.

I do want to thank my family. My leadership came as a big surprise to my kids. They are not watching question period or the news all day every day, so on February 2 in the evening, they turned on the news and saw that their mom and grammy was the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. My children have sacrificed a lot over the last 14 years, but I know that they would say they gained a lot. Luke, Delaney and Parker are the very best kids in the world, and I am so grateful for their love and support. They are always proud of me and show it, and I love them very much. I thank them very, very much for being my kids.

I give a big thanks to my husband, my love, Michael, who has been a partner and my partner in this every step of the way. He has helped me be a better member of Parliament and a better leader because of his wisdom, his sense of humour and his support.

Although I will not be the leader after September 10, I know I still have a lot of work to do as a leader within our caucus and within our party and our movement. I am looking forward to working with our new leader and Conservatives around the country to do just that.

To close, as members know, and as the member for Waterloo mentioned, Michael and I did move into Stornoway and we will be there until the new leader is chosen. We have enjoyed being able to use it as a working house and a place for colleagues and others to gather, meet and talk about important issues facing our country.

Members will be interested to know that I am getting some mail at Stornoway addressed to past opposition leaders who lived there previously. Actually, I have gotten some mail for some of our previous leaders, and I plan to give it to them the next time I see them. However, if anyone on the Liberal side happens to know where Michael Ignatieff is these days, I think he may have won a prize in the lottery or something, because I got a piece of mail for him. Perhaps we can wait until after the next election, when the Liberals will be taking over Stornoway again. Maybe Michael Ignatieff will come back to visit and one of them can give him that piece of mail.

Hon. Member for Portage—LisgarOral Questions

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Leave it on the desk.

Hon. Member for Portage—LisgarOral Questions

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

I will leave it on the desk.

All joking aside, again, I thank everyone for their kind words. It has been a fun six months and it has been an incredible session. Our work is not over, but I know we will all finish strong because that is the kind of people we are.

I thank everyone here, including all members of Parliament, all of the support staff and the Speaker. We are getting ready to rise and go back to our ridings, so I wish all members a wonderful summer as we head back and work for our constituents.

Godspeed to everyone in the days ahead and God bless Canada.

Hon. Member for Portage—LisgarOral Questions

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

It being 3:45 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at third reading of Bill C-11.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #163

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote, please.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #164

Online Streaming ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to speak to Bill C-21. I am going to try to deal with a number of complex issues in a short amount of time and hope it works.

It relates to Bill C-21, and that is the use of firearms. I want to comment on some of the discussion during question period about the Portapique shootings. I think it is important to reflect on what I take away from the news media at this time, when I have a moment to say it. There is no chance of interrupting question period to put it into perspective.

As a Nova Scotian originally, I was devastated, as we all were, by the shootings at Portapique. The RCMP officer who was killed, Heidi Stevenson, was a friend of mine and I know her mother well.

It was awful to watch what happened. We will see what the Mass Casualty Commission produces as a result, but it is pretty clear to me, and I want to speak clearly to this, that the RCMP in Nova Scotia failed the public badly. I know a commission is looking at this, but the RCMP had information that was not shared. It failed to put out a warning and 22 people were killed. I know this inquiry is very important to all the families who lost loved ones.

There appears to me to have been an uncalled-for assumption by some members in question period, who put into question the integrity of the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister's Office. I am not an apologist for the Liberals, but I thought that was not what the evidence revealed. When I look at the CBC reports of what they found out, it appears to me that in the aftermath of the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP was all too quick to try to obscure facts from the public, rather than reveal them.

It appears to me that the RCMP commissioner, Brenda Lucki, provided more transparency and provided real information. If anyone in PMO instructed her anything, it seems to me that it would have been to tell everybody what has happened and just be transparent. I am very concerned that we let any false rumours or assumptions to besmirch the reputations of others, including Brenda Lucki, be spread in this place.

It appears to me, as in a number of other shooting incidents, that sometimes the police get it wrong. They did not move in Uvalde, Texas, when they should have, to save those children. There is a common denominator that I discern, which is that when the RCMP is slow to move or the police are slow to move, it is because the people they would have to deal with are heavily armed. I do not find the police slow to move against unarmed protesters. I do not find the police slow to move against indigenous people. However, they delay when they are at risk for their own safety, all too often. It is not always, but all too often.

In the case of the Nova Scotia shooter, we know his name. I do not want to repeat it, because of the crimes he committed. However, he was well known to the RCMP and in the early hours after the shooting, the Nova Scotia RCMP, not the commissioner, put out false statements that he was not known to them. He was known personally to them. They had warnings about him.

This goes to make the bridge and the connection to Bill C-21. This goes to a number of the provisions of Bill C-21 that, if Bill C-21 had been law at that time, could have saved lives. The neighbours of the multiple shooter in Nova Scotia, and we can just call him the evil dentist for the time being, reported him to the RCMP on numerous occasions, but no action was taken. Neighbours were so frightened of him that they literally sold their dream home and moved away, yet nothing was done to even conduct a search of the property or even to inquire why he is buying a car that looks just like an RCMP vehicle. Why does he dress up like an RCMP officer? These details were known in the community, and a number of them were reported to law enforcement authorities.

Could this bill have made a difference? I think it could have, but only if the RCMP or local police are prepared to use the information that comes to them. That is why one of the provisions in this bill that I particularly like is the ability to seek an ex parte motion on the strength of concerns from people who are concerned that some person may be threatening others, not just with firearms, by the way, but with crossbows or with explosive substances. This is really important. This is found under “Application for emergency prohibition order” in clause 4 of this bill, which would amend section 110 of the Firearms Act.

It is really important that we recognize what an ex parte order is. That means that people can go to the court without notifying the person they are scared of that they are going to court, and there can be an emergency search and seizure without a warrant. This violates every instinct of my being, searches without warrants, because I am a civil liberties lawyer, but there is a history of violence by people in the community, people we know.

There is a lot about this law that I hope we will have time to study thoroughly, and I want to speak to that. There are the red flag and yellow flag provisions, the ability to go to a judge without fear of retribution from someone who is well armed or who has crossbows. It may be in cases, as we know all too frequently, of intimate partner violence. It may be in cases of the random and reckless killing of others, as in the case of Portapique or the desperately sad case of Lionel Desmond, who killed his wife and mother and kids. He was, of course, suffering from PTSD from his service in our armed forces and did not get the help he needed, even though he had gone to a hospital the day before. There are many and varied circumstances when the presence of firearms in a home makes the difference between life and death, and where the provisions in Bill C-21 would indeed, I hope, save lives.

I want to turn to a process question at this point: Why rush this bill? I am very concerned that we just invoked time allocation on a bill that we had only had before us for debate for three hours. This bill is complex. It has many moving parts. The government itself has changed its views on key aspects of this bill between its version last year, which was also Bill C-21, and its version this year, which is the current Bill C-21. The Liberals changed their minds, and wisely, on the question of voluntary versus mandatory buyback. They changed their minds, wisely, on the question of any jurisdiction other than the federal government regulating guns. Those were wise choices, and this bill has changed in that way.

Bills get better when they are studied. Any attempt to achieve consensus will improve a bill. A decision on the government side that the Conservatives are only going to obstruct and delay and filibuster is entirely a justified conclusion, given conduct so far in this Parliament, but that does not excuse shortening the time for debate, shortening the time for study and shortening the time to try to find consensus in this place, which is possible.

I want to put forward some of the things that would help achieve consensus. One is to observe the rules, which are our rules. It does not take changing the Standing Orders to ban the practice of reading a speech. How does that connect? When a whip or a House leader in a party knows that they can rally however many MPs they have, like cannon fodder, and give them a speech to deliver in 10 minutes, they can clog up the works of this place with people giving speeches.

If the rules prohibited members from reading a speech and required them to express their thoughts in their own words, there would be fewer members rising to speak during a debate on a bill.

We need to get control of this so that we can have real debate among fewer MPs, because fewer MPs would be able to stand up and speak without a written speech.

The next thing we need to do is consider how many days we sit in this place. We have this panic this time of year, every year, as though a disaster will strike if we do not adjourn on a day that is set. We could sit for more days. We sit for far fewer days than the U.S. Congress, and even fewer days than the British Parliament.

I voted against time allocation, because this is a complicated bill and we should take the time it needs, to respect each other and come up with the best bill.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her thoughts and reflections on this.

I have a question regarding her criticism of the requirement for time allocation. I know she spends a lot of time in the House and is certainly aware of what goes on in this House. I am sure she is aware of the fact that on numerous occasions the Conservatives have been continually using any tactics possible to literally make the government grind to a halt. They do not even pick one or two issues that will be the hills they die on, but seem to just be willing to do anything at any point to stop debate.

Given the member's comments and concerns with respect to time allocation, I wonder if she can reflect on that.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I have seen that. Sometime before the 2019 election, I remember we had a quick move by a Conservative, who was very pleased with it, to hoist a motion on a private member's bill to declare a Canadian day to acknowledge our Spanish heritage, and he managed to have a mandatory debate that lasted five hours. People were running out of things to say. They were saying that they liked sombreros and they made gazpacho, but there was nothing to say. Everybody was in support of the motion. It was clearly a delay tactic.

We have to work harder to preserve our basic core principles and values in this place, which are that every MP should participate in reasonable debate, within which we respect each other. It is not just the Conservatives; in another Parliament it will be somebody else. We cannot allow the worst conduct of any particular Parliament to drive lesser rights for members of Parliament in the next Parliament.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Madam Speaker, I think there are some really germane facts about the Mass Casualty Commission that people need to understand, since the member brought it up. Certainly, that action was perpetrated by illegal guns, not by a legal gun owner, so I think that is important to point out.

The other important thing to point out here is that what we need to talk about in this House is so important that we should all get a chance to do it. The time allocation that the government has brought with respect to this bill is absolutely ridiculous. When we continuously see ministers misleading the House with information, it is very clear. We now know that we cannot trust anything they say, so how can we expect to move these bills forward? That is the point of debating this at the current time.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I would say this to the member for Cumberland—Colchester, in whose riding these killings took place. The Mass Casualty Commission has revealed some things and we have to wait for its final conclusions. I think it was a mistake not to require all of the RCMP officers who participated in the events to be part of the inquiry and to testify. I know some of the families have even withdrawn participation because they are so disappointed with the path of the inquiry. What I will say is this. Whether the guns were legal or illegal, many neighbours tried to tell the RCMP they were scared of this man and nothing was done.

Bill C-21 will help deal with that.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I take issue with the same things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands does: the time-wasting tactics and the reduced time for debate prevent us from getting to the bottom of things.

I would like to know whether my colleague was as bothered as I was when we were called to vote twice instead of once to decide which Conservative member would speak. I cannot get over it and I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.

I think that closure, or time allocation, is wrong and undermines our democracy. We need to take the time to really examine the issues.

Bill C-21 is important. I think I support it, but it raises a number of issues on which I may want to see amendments, particularly regarding law-abiding citizens who use recreational firearms.

We must make every effort to come up with solutions together. That is why I oppose closure motions.