Debates of May 16th, 2023

Criminal Code

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear it in her speech specifically, but I know Conservatives have expressed concern about clause 43 and moved to take it out of the bill. Can she affirm her support for removing clause 43 and explain to the House why she thinks that is so important?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have clause 43 in front of me, so I am not going to disagree or agree with something I cannot specifically refer to at the moment.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that removing clause 43 is one of the Conservative amendments at report stage, so I would encourage her to do her homework on her party's own amendments. If she does want to take a little time to let us know whether she is in favour of or opposed to a Conservative Party amendment, I think we would all appreciate knowing whether she supports her party's amendments or not.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I have not memorized the numbers and the amendments, so I would have to look it up to make sure I am agreeing or disagreeing with whatever the amendment says.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member in my caucus if she could perhaps expand on how we got to the point where Bill C-21 is now being debated today. It started with the OIC, the initial version of Bill C-21, which provided complete misinformation by the minister and made wild accusations against firearms owners.

I would like to hear her talk about the journey it took to get to this point, in May 2023, where we are still debating this bill and it still has very deep flaws in it.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the beginning of this bill really started with Polytechnique, and that was when the Liberals, the socialists and a whole bunch of them decided to wage war. It was Bill C-68 at the time. They wanted to start a gun registry, which failed miserably because the fact that someone is registering a firearm did not do anything to prevent crime.

Then we fast-forward to the tragedy in Nova Scotia. On the heels of that, and in trying to interfere in the investigation into the tragedy, the Liberals were trying to get the RCMP commissioner to find out what the list of guns was so they could justify their order in council gun ban.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-21. It has never been more clear how disconnected the current Liberal government is from rural Canadians. Firearms are tools for millions of Canadians, especially those who call rural Canada their home.

I am a law-abiding firearms owner myself, just like millions of other Canadians across this country. I represent a region in this House of Commons that comprises rural communities and rural Canadians. The largest community I represent is smaller than 10,000 people. I am also a farmer who, just like thousands of other farmers, uses a firearm, not as a weapon but as a tool to protect my farm. When I speak to Bill C-21, I speak from an understanding of what a firearm means to the rural way of life.

Rural Canadians share the understanding that the firearm is a tool. It is an understanding shared by first nations, hunters and law-abiding firearms owners all across this nation. Unfortunately, the current Liberal government has few members in rural regions and, therefore, little representation from rural Canada. When I see the government display such a blatant disregard for the rural way of life, I fear it has made a calculated political decision to write off the views of rural Canada for its own political gain. After all, rural Canadians did send the Liberals a strong message at the ballot box in the last election. The government has no regard for the concerns, the priorities or the way of life of rural Canadians.

The cost of the neglect displayed by the government toward rural Canadians is a direct reflection of an increasing urban-rural divide, and it is a divide that I fear will only grow larger the longer the Prime Minister remains in power.

This is a very important matter, and I draw to the Speaker's attention that quorum is not present in this chamber.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I appreciate the quorum call, but the order that was passed earlier does not allow for quorum calls after 6:30 p.m.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the special order. I just want the record to show that we are considering Bill C-21 at report stage without the constitutional requirement of quorum. I point out that the special order under which we are operating also provides for third reading to be—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the rule is that quorum cannot be called. It does not say how many members are in the chamber or in the MPs' lounges. It could be a large number, or it could be a smaller number. It is just that we cannot call quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It also devolves into the issue of underlining who is in the chamber and who is not in the chamber. It does get into that.

There is a point of order by the hon. member for York—Simcoe.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order on that point of order. Those numbers are part of the member's speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Let me deal with the point of order issue.

Before members go any further with their points of order, I would remind them that on May 9, the House duly adopted an order prescribing that the Chair not receive any quorum calls after 6:30 p.m. It is after 6:30 p.m. Let us not talk about it because it is part of the order that we are working under.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, debate at second reading also took place without quorum on June 9, June 21 and June 22, 2022. That means that Bill C-21 will have been considered without the constitutional requirement of quorum for every stage of the legislative process in this House.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1985—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I need to interrupt the hon. member. Bringing up quorum is sort of calling for quorum. Members need to be careful in what they are calling for.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1985 that the requirement of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 23 of the Manitoba—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is rising on a point of order.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is an established rule that members are not to reflect on a decision made by the House. The House did decide to have extended evening sittings for the purpose of hearing members who rightly want to speak to the bill, but they are not to reflect on a decision of the House that was made to not require quorum in order to create more time for members to offer their thoughts about the bill on the record.

The line of argument that my colleague is adopting makes it harder for the House to adopt such motions in the future, which I think would be very unfortunate because they are critical to providing the space and time for members to put their thoughts on the record about legislation before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for trying to enforce established rules of the House and I support you in continuing to do that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am going to remind the hon. member that we cannot call for quorum during this time. We cannot necessarily talk about quorum. I understand that this is probably a part of what his speech actually is. We are running on a little bit of thin ice here.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the requirements of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The member for Elmwood—Transcona is rising on a point of order.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss as to how to proceed. I think the Speaker has made it clear that the line of argument infringes upon certain rules of the House. I appreciate that the member already wrote his speech. As somebody who does not use notes, and I know that the member knows the content of the bill very well, I just encourage him to get out of his notes and speak to the content of the bill. In this way, he will not be infringing upon the rules of the House or upon your recent ruling.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard is rising on the same point of order.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you have made a ruling, and members have been given wide latitude by Chair occupants in the past to go back into their speech that they have prewritten, where they have made annotations for themselves. The member is referring, obviously, to a court case. He has a point that he is trying to make. If that other member would just let him finish his point, I am sure he will carry on to the rest of the business that he wants to do.

I hear members laughing across the way, but they are given the same latitude to speak to bills. We all bring notes into the House to make a speech.

You have made a ruling, Mr. Speaker, so we should just carry on with the debate on Bill C-21.