House of Commons Hansard #198 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-21.
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that it is against the rules of the House to mislead the House. The hon. member knows that he was approached by a hard-working, Conservative staff member, who asked him personally to understand that there was an administrative error made—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
That is debate.
Order. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin know these are points of debate, and it is not proper to be debating while I have the floor.
I would ask the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to finish up.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, why did Conservatives table this motion to remove the exemption—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I would ask the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin to not speak while someone else has the floor. If he continues, he can either leave the chamber or be asked to leave.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have tabled this as Motion No. 12. It removes the exemption for sport shooters, for Olympic and Paralympic competitions. Conservatives have filed this. Why did they file this?
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Speaker, let me talk about ghost guns after three hours in the House. The respected member for Kootenay—Columbia, who is a former RCMP officer of over 30 years, brought it up to the government over two and a half years ago. It did nothing at that time.
Then the member for Kootenay—Columbia asked a very important question: Where is the education in this law? Where is the education? I have to thank the Saskatoon Wildlife Federation for all the great work it does. With this bill, the federal government has done nothing on the education process going forward on Bill C-21. It should be ashamed.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, there are a lot of issues that come with this type of debate. I appreciate my colleague talking about the reality in urban Saskatchewan versus rural Saskatchewan. Does he want to elaborate?
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Madam Speaker, believe it or not, even though I am an urban MP, I get a lot of calls. In my province, people want to be outdoors. They want to shoot guns and sport shoot. I have to thank the Wildlife Federation that does a wonderful job in my community.
The one thing I will say is that I am so proud of Bob Freberg and the Province of Saskatchewan. They are still owed $9 million by the federal government because it has not paid for the officer or the office.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I join this debate. I am going to speak for a bit and then I will take some questions because I have some answers I would like to give to a few of the questions that were asked in the chamber this evening. I hope members will stay and have the courage to ask me the same questions they asked other members.
I am really standing up for the law-abiding firearms owners in Saskatchewan this evening, because despite what the junior coalition partner NDP and the Liberals say, we all know that the two amendments that were brought forward with members kicking and screaming were about, with one, trying to create a backdoor registry and, with the second, a minimal change to the definition, which really did not affect the legislation at all.
When we talked about amendments, several times this evening my colleagues tried to put forward a unanimous motion to change an amendment that had a clerical error. Years ago, this would not have happened. Years ago, under Tom Mulcair or Jack Layton, they would have been honoured to accept that unanimous consent motion and it would have been changed because it was simply a clerical error. Time and time again, the House leader stood and mischaracterized what happened, which is a sore spot for Conservatives because we do like to try to work together in this House. What we have seen tonight was complete disrespect for how this chamber is supposed to work.
I will go back to standing up for law-abiding firearms owners across Saskatchewan. Regina—Lewvan is an urban riding that has sport shooters, hunters, people who go to the range to trap-shoot and the Regina Wildlife Federation, good, salt-of-the-earth people who just want to keep their traditions alive. Earlier on in this debate about law-abiding firearms owners, we learned that it really was not about decreasing crime. It was really about going after something that people do not understand.
I have some quotes by people who are not traditional Conservatives. One is from Chief Heather Bear from the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations. Chief Heather Bear stated:
When guns are confiscated from sustenance hunters, it impacts them and their families when they have merely been trying to put food on the table.
When guns are confiscated it may also impact the whole nation, especially those who hunt for ceremonial purposes, in that sometimes we only need traditional food for ceremonies....
If there are no safety issues and there is no issue of domestic violence or any kind of violence, then taking away a gun impacts our nations and our citizens' ability to assert our inherent, and treaty and constitutional rights. We also view our guns as a tool of our first nations sustenance hunters.
That is not a traditional Conservative supporter. I would also say that I do not think she would be a conspiracy theorist. I think she has some genuine concern about what is going to happen with their traditional way of life and how they will feed their families. I dare any member in this House to stand and say that is fearmongering, as has been said so often tonight about Conservatives who have brought forward concerns from their constituents.
We all represent our constituents and it is being boiled down by some in the NDP who are terrified by this debate right now because they know they are going to lose seats in rural Canada due to being on the wrong side of history on this. We need to remember when Liberals, in the 1990s, brought in the long gun registry. I remember that they were going to drop crime and crime statistics were going to plummet because they were going to take long guns away from our hunters and farmers. This is just rinse and repeat.
We see right now that violent crime has gone up 32% in our country, with the Liberals doing nothing with their hug-a-thug policies. We are seeing gang violence increase by over 90%. Do we think this legislation is going to prevent that?
I have my PAL. I know how long it took to get my possession and acquisition licence. I know that every morning my name goes through CPIC, and the Liberals and NDP are trying to take advantage of people who do not know what the regulations are around this. Every morning my name goes through CPIC, like every other person who has a PAL, to make sure they have not done anything wrong. If they go through, police officers know that people have firearms in their possession because of our PAL and that there could be dangerous situations, which does not happen with law-abiding firearms owners.
Robert Freberg came and talked to the Saskatchewan caucus. Do members know how many crimes in Saskatchewan have been committed with a legally owned firearm? Fewer than a handful, he said. If people in this chamber think voting for the bill is going to drop crime rates in our country, either they are lying to themselves or they do not understand what the bill would actually do.
We know that with the so-called NDP standing up for these amendments, there is going to be a firearms advisory committee. This committee is going to then use it as a back door to bring through more legislation and take guns away from law-abiding hunters and farmers.
I just got off the phone with the Agribition CEO, Kim Hextall. She asked why they would want to take away firearms from people who use them for protecting their livestock and for removing varmints. These are the people none of these members in this chamber are standing up for, and I think it is something that should be taken very seriously. If they are going to take gun crime seriously and try to get gang members to not have illegal firearms, perhaps they should not have voted in favour of Bill C-5, which lessened the penalties for all these crimes.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I would like to read from a news article: “The final report of the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) investigating the April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that left 22 people dead makes several recommendations to meaningfully change Canada's gun laws.” The headline reads, “MCC report calls for stricter gun laws”.
Is there any situation in which the Conservative Party would support stricter gun laws?
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, there absolutely is.
The Prime Minister said on December 19, 2022, that “there are some guns, yes, that we're going to have to take away from people who were using them to hunt.”
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
It being 11:59 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 9, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion Nos. 2 to 6, 9 and 12.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 10. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 11. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 11.
The question is on Motion No. 13.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The recorded division stands deferred.
Normally, at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, May 17, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, it would be okay to call it 12:20 so we can begin the late show.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, at the outset of the pandemic, a number of very young adults graduated out of foster care. Of course, in the first summer of the pandemic, there was no employment because the economy was effectively shut down for public health reasons. Normally, kids graduating out of foster care, if they did not have employment, would apply for social assistance with the provincial government. The Government of Manitoba told them that it would not even entertain their applications unless they had applied for every other possible source of revenue. Of course, at that time, CERB had just been made available, so the provincial government gave those kids the link and said they should go and apply. The provincial government knew full well that it was a no-fail application process. Those kids did what the government told them to do. They applied for the CERB and started receiving CERB because they were not eligible for social assistance.
Then, much later, they were told by the federal government that they were not eligible for social assistance and that they had to pay all the money back. Of course, the provincial government was not going to give them back pay on the social assistance that they otherwise would have been entitled to. These are some of the people who are now struggling to pay back that CERB debt. To insist on these kids' paying that debt back to the federal government is a surefire way to undermine them as they try to get a start in life after a difficult childhood.
The federal government says it is going to deal compassionately with these cases using a case-by-case approach, but the evidence is that a lot of people are getting the bills in the mail. They are having a hard time getting through to the CRA. They are not getting the debt relief they require. The compassionate thing to do would be to have a general policy of debt amnesty for low-income Canadians who got CERB but were not eligible. That is the compassionate approach, but the government refuses to do it and, instead, insists on this case-by-case approach.
Let us contrast that with the treatment of companies under the Canada emergency wage subsidy program. As early as December 2020, the Financial Post was reporting that at least 68 companies that got the wage subsidy were paying out dividends to their shareholders. Some of those companies include Imperial Oil and Suncor, which would go on to make record profits. I mean that they made more profit than they have ever made, ever in their entire history, over the course of the pandemic. Do members know how much the government has asked them to repay? It is zero dollars.
Let us talk about the Ottawa country club that got the Canada emergency wage subsidy. It actually ended up having a banner year because it had a way for people to play golf in a socially distanced manner. It decided to advance its capital plan to repave its parking lot by about three years with the money it got from the emergency wage subsidy program. Do members know how much it has been asked to repay? It is zero dollars, not a cent.
In Edmonton, Cessco Fabrication and Engineering Ltd. locked out its employees and used the wage subsidy to hire scab labour to come in behind the picket line and perform the work of unionized employees who were exercising their legal and constitutional right to strike. Do members know how much it has been asked to pay back? It is zero dollars.
Why is it that foster kids graduating out of care in Manitoba during a global pandemic, who were told by government to apply for the CERB and just did what they were told, cannot get any compassionate relief policy out of the government, but giant corporations that got money they were not entitled to, which then went on to abuse workers, spend money on parking lots or pay it out to wealthy shareholders, are not being pursued by the government in the same way? Where is the fairness in that?
Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings
London North Centre Ontario
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
Madam Speaker, I believe our government's approach during the pandemic was compassionate, fair and responsible.
I listened tonight to my colleague, and I mentioned before the respect I have for him. He continues to raise such matters, as is his right, but he neglects to mention what the Canada emergency wage subsidy, or the CEWS, a signature pandemic emergency response program, was all about. Yes, wage subsidy support did go to large corporations, but the vast majority of the funds under the program went, in fact, to small businesses. It went to medium-sized businesses as well, but, in the main, it was small businesses, mom-and-pop shops, restaurants, retailers, those in manufacturing and entrepreneurs who had started businesses and had put their blood, sweat and tears into those businesses. They were the ones getting the support.
Failing to mention that, in a way, takes us down a path that would misunderstand what the CEWS program was all about. It was about keeping employees on the payroll. It was about making sure those employees who had been laid off as a result of the pandemic could be rehired. By and large, it was an enormous success. If my colleague is looking for perfection, he will look a long time. There is no perfect policy, but I go back to the fact that in the context of a pandemic, where one had to fly the plane and build it at the same time, so to speak, this proved to be an enormously successful program.
My friend does not have to take that only from me; he can talk to the business community. He will note that unions have spoken about the importance of the wage subsidy. Again, it is not a perfect program, but it is a program that did help enormous numbers of Canadians, businesses and their employees, by the thousands.
In my own community of London, Ontario, I saw it at work. It was quite successful there as well. Whether it is on the street or in the constituency office, I continue to hear about the role it had.
On CERB, the Canada emergency response benefit, my colleague has not mentioned it here, but he has raised in the past the idea of a blanket CERB amnesty. I get where he is coming from on that, but he fails to mention here, too, that, as a general fairness principle, one has to be very open to the obligation of the government to ensure eligibility. That is, in fact, what the Canada Revenue Agency is doing now. It is going back and ensuring that those who actually received the CERB were eligible for it. If that effort is not made, it really goes against the whole idea of a social safety net. One has to, in principle, always be open to the idea that in order to receive program support under any social safety net, and the CERB is an example of that, one needs to be eligible for it.
The government is taking that approach. It is also putting in place an approach that says to those individuals that they have the ability to have a repayment plan offered through the CRA, so that, if they cannot afford to pay the lump sum of the amount owing, they can have a repayment plan to pay incrementally whatever they can afford on a monthly basis.
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, I think my friend needs a slight history lesson. He will recall that it was actually the NDP that called for the wage subsidy program in the first place. The Liberals proposed a 10% wage replacement rate, and New Democrats argued for a 75% replacement rate because we understood that this was an important program.
This is not to take away from the good work CEWS did, just as the CERB did a lot of good work, but the difference is that in the case of the wage subsidy the people who abused it, who should not have received it, were big corporations making a lot of money. In the case of CERB, there is a whole bunch of people who did abuse that program by committing identity fraud and through other ways of getting it. The New Democrats have been very clear that this money should be pursued.
However, for the folks who applied in desperation and who continue to have low incomes, New Democrats believe compassion has to be shown. Why is there compassion for giant companies and not compassion for the poor?