Debates of June 21st, 2022

Bill C-21—Time Allocation Motion

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert that invoking closure over and over again sets a dangerous precedent.

I am someone who has been in the House long enough to remember when time allocation was rare. When Stephen Harper started bringing it in over and over again, I counted. I put to the ministers then that between 1920 and 2000, we had seen these kinds of debates 40 times, and in the previous 18 months we had seen them 40 times.

I would urge my hon. friends in the Liberal Party and in the NDP to consider what we are doing here. When we make time allocation routine, it means that the next government in the next session will weaponize it further, and the rights of individual MPs to debate bills properly will be further eroded. I ask them to please not do this thing.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her comments and her notes of caution. Of course, we are using this particular procedural motion to advance debate. I would hope that she would know that there is always going to be an open mind on studying this bill and that there will always be an open mind on improving this bill. Of course, I remain open to her suggestions and to the suggestions of all parliamentarians, and indeed of all Canadians, on how we can better protect Canadians.

My hon. colleague spoke about the weaponization of procedural motions. I am concerned about the weaponization of lethal firearms in our communities. Of course, this past weekend was a very harsh reminder that, tragically, innocent lives are being lost. Instead of getting any kind of collaboration from the Conservatives, we have seen delay tactics. That has to stop. Debate will continue at committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member from the Green Party. As I have said before, no one likes time allocation, but it is a tool that is necessary when we cannot negotiate and have co-operation.

We must remember that the mandate was not just given to this government in terms of co-operating. The mandate to co-operate was given to all political entities in the chamber. All it takes is any one opposition party to prevent any piece of legislation from passing, which will force the government to bring in time allocation or to concede the legislation and never see it pass.

My question to my colleague is this. Would he not agree that, at the end of the day, this is important? This is what Canadians want to see, which is the type of legislation that would have an impact on our lives. That is why we have to push it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will allow the hon. minister to answer. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

The hon. minister.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, in short, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. colleague and the observation he makes that Bill C-21 is vitally important to Canadians, because it seeks to address the increase of gun violence, which has been statistically studied by StatsCan and other individuals over the past decade or so.

We have seen gun crime go up. We have seen handgun crime, specifically, go up. We have seen intimate-partner violence and gender-based violence go up in connection with the presence of guns. Rather than being able to advance the bill in this chamber, we have seen Conservatives partake in filibustering, which is why we have brought forward this time allocation motion. It does not stop debate. Of course, this bill will continue to be studied by the committee so we can better protect Canadians from the scourge of gun violence.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the government defending its use of something that Liberals previously said was an absolute affront to democracy: time allocation. It is incumbent upon us to talk about the fact that the bill has been debated for three hours and 20-odd minutes. This is not a bill that has been “filibustered”; this is a bill that has barely received scrutiny. There are valid questions that have been raised.

I believe that it is really important to point out right now, especially for the record, that the concerns that are being heard in my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and many ridings across the prairies are very different from the concerns that are being heard elsewhere. I think that this government would be very well suited not to move time allocation on this and instead hear directly from these witnesses. I would urge the minister to come to the prairies. He can come to my riding and talk to people who have serious concerns about the bill and what it would mean for their day-to-day living. Will he come to my riding to talk to the gun owners?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to accept my hon. colleague's invitation, and I thank her for it. Also, I am pleased to alert her to the fact that I have previously visited the ridings of some of her colleagues in opposition, including Lethbridge, Alberta, where I had the chance to interact with law-abiding gun owners, for whom we have a tremendous amount of respect.

I would point out that we are not stopping the debate on this bill. All of the urging that my colleague has impressed upon me and the government to hear from witnesses and to continue with debate is an effort that will continue at committee. We have to move on with the bill, because this is an urgent issue, and we look forward to making sure that we can study this bill and ultimately pass it to better protect Canadians.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, what needs to be acknowledged this morning is that this government refuses to accept its status as a minority government, and has never accepted it, since 2019. Its minority status means that it has to work with the opposition parties. It refused to do so from the beginning, so the government called an election in the middle of a pandemic to try to win a majority. When that did not work, the government found a third party to be its puppet, and now it can do whatever it wants. Then it complains that the opposition is trying to obstruct proceedings in order to buy time. Of course, the government should not expect collaboration when it refuses to respect its collaborators.

We were told yesterday that we would be sitting until midnight tonight. No one knows who was consulted. The government House leader is not communicating with the House leaders of the other parties. If that is not contempt, I do not know what is. I urge the government to open its eyes and, more importantly, its ears and work with the opposition parties so we can stop debating about not debating. This is ridiculous.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague's role and the opposition's role. That is exactly why we came up with concrete and practical solutions for Canadians during the pandemic and obtained a consensus in the House. This was done very publicly and I am very proud of the result.

At the same time, with respect to gun violence, I am working with my Quebec counterparts, as I have mentioned several times. We must act. We will continue to debate this bill in committee with all members, including the Bloc members.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that this is getting disturbing. I hear the Conservatives time and again spending all the time of the House trying to tear this place down, instead of fighting for people in their ridings.

People are struggling right now. I say that with great frustration, because just in May there were three women murdered in Winnipeg—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, at page 662 of Bosc and Gagnon, it states:

The intent of the question-and-answer period after closure motion has been moved is to promote ministerial accountability, and it provides an opportunity for the government to justify its use of this measure.

This is not an opportunity for the fourth party in this place to hold the opposition to account.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I take the hon. member's comments. As he knows, I have been here for almost 14 years. Even when it was a Conservative government, the same line of questioning was actually happening. We have to have debate, and the debate is to hear both sides.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat that it is disturbing to listen to the Conservative Party taking people down instead of fighting for people in their ridings in question period after question period, and stalling things at committees.

It is concerning to me because, in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, there were three women murdered in the month of May. One other woman was hit and left to perish. These are serious issues that we are dealing with. If the Conservative Party and people in the House are so concerned about having time for debate, then maybe they should stop playing procedural games. I have concerns about debate, so I am making sure that we have proper time for debate.

I want to ask the minister this. How is he going to ensure accountability at committee to make sure that due process is followed and make sure that we can come up with something that truly helps individuals in Canada?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for her advocacy, and express my condolences and support to my hon. colleague's community for the recent tragic losses owing to gun violence. That is precisely why we have to continue to be motivated to have debate and—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I hope if you seek it you would receive unanimous consent for the extension of the question-and-answer period by 15 minutes. I think there is incredibly valuable discussion that is yet to be had on this particular subject.

I would ask for unanimous consent to extend this period by what I think is a very reasonable 15 minutes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[An hon. member]

Nay.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that we will continue to have at least five more hours of debate on Bill C-21. Then it will go to committee, where I know there will be a very extensive, thorough and comprehensive study of Bill C-21. This is a good bill. It has the broad support of Canadians across a wide array of constituencies.

We embrace the idea of debating, and passing, this bill so we can better protect communities from the scourge of gun violence.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the 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.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #162

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 20 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.