Debates of May 9th, 2023

Privilege

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 25, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will be now a 30-minute question period.

I will invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair can have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate.

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things I would like the minister to address. I have many, many questions for him on his recent announcements, and his attack on law-abiding gun owners and the tools used by hunters.

However, in particular, there is something of a personal nature I would like to ask the minister. He keeps alluding to the Conservatives, and I, of course, am the lead on this file for our party. In his recent press conference, the minister insinuated that it was our fault Liberal members are getting abuse from some online. He insinuated there was violence as a result of, presumably, what I have been doing.

I would like to know if the minister would like to correct what he said because I take great offence to that, particularly when Conservative members have received significant abuse from folks who align with the Liberal side, yet I am not out here accusing the Liberal minister of his rhetoric being the reason that I have received death threats. It is obviously very personal in nature. I took great offence to that. The minister is taking this way too far, and I would like him to apologize.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I have respect for the work she does. She also knows that I am gravely concerned about any threats that have been made against her, as well as against any other member of Parliament in the chamber.

I would also point out that my colleague and parliamentary secretary, who serves on the Standing Committee On Public Safety and National Security, is among many women in the chamber, and they are the disproportionate recipients of death threats. We need to condemn that kind of behaviour. It is absolutely unacceptable. I will never apologize for standing up for the rights of every member, of every woman, to participate in this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am, in principle, opposed to closure motions. I do recognize that Bill C-21 has been in front of the House for a long time, and I understand the difficulty that the larger parties have in sorting out how to work collaboratively in the interest of efficient handling of the legislation in this place.

Does the minister not think it would be helpful if Parliament decided to obey the rules of Westminster parliamentary democracies around the world and not allow written speeches? It is my view that, if members had to speak based on their knowledge of the subject matter, it might narrow down the field of the number of speeches we hear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would want to go to great lengths to speak extemporaneously from my knowledge of this file. I will tell members, though, that, with regard to Bill C-21, there have been 15 meetings, 79 witnesses and approximately 40 hours spent, despite the fact that, at various junctures in this debate, we have seen the Conservatives filibuster in an effort to stop a responsible rigorous debate on gun control laws in this country.

This is not the first time this has occurred. This is consistent with a pattern of obstruction and obfuscation by principally one party in the chamber, which is the Conservatives. We want to protect Canadians, and we believe that, by passing Bill C-21, we will promote responsible gun control and save lives.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, recently in Surrey, the Minister of Public Safety announced that $4.5 million under the safe communities fund will go to the City of Surrey. He is well aware that in Surrey, guns and gangs are one of the top priorities for my constituents. I would ask him how this bill would help the people of Surrey.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have worked very closely with my friend and colleague, the member for Surrey—Newton, when it comes to keeping our communities safe.

As he knows, we recently made an announcement in his riding that will provide additional grassroots support to the organizations providing mental health services, educational supports and career supports, especially to those young people who are at the greatest risk of being exposed to gun violence.

I want to emphasize that this is a government that is squarely focused on three priorities when it comes to reducing gun violence: strong borders, strong laws and enforcement, and strong prevention. Together, with the support of a number of other opposition parties, it is my sincere hope that we will pass Bill C-21 so we can put in place strong gun control laws to save lives.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to comment on how important it is that we listen to law enforcement when it comes to ghost guns in this country. How important is this legislation and that we pass it in a timely fashion and have a proper debate? The Conservatives are still prohibiting that proper dialogue from taking place.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP is correct. There has been obstruction from the Conservatives with respect to the debate on this bill, and on an array of priorities when it comes to delivering for Canadians. I would highlight that we have had 15 meetings, 79 witnesses and approximately 40 hours of debate, despite the obfuscation by the Conservatives.

I thank my colleague from the NDP, as well as my colleagues from the Bloc, with whom we have had constructive discussions on the next steps we need to take to strengthen the national ban on the AR-15 assault-style firearms, which have no place in our communities. It is only the Conservatives who are advocating for policies that would repeal that ban and make those types of guns, which were designed for a battle field, legal again.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the observations I have made during my time in this place is how much the Liberal government loves to hinder Canadians and their freedoms.

We saw Bill C-11 get rammed through the House. We more recently saw how Beijing interfered in our elections in this country. An hon. colleague of mine, and his family in Hong Kong, were threatened and intimidated, and the government did nothing. We have seen the government move time allocation on bills over and over again to ram them through.

Specifically, with Bill C-21, we see a government that wants to take away rifles from hunters, again wanting to thwart the freedom Canadians have, and not entrust them with the tools for a basic lifestyle. I am curious as to why the government is so distrusting of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to the ongoing efforts by the Conservatives to stoke fear, we respect gun owners, farmers and the first nations communities who use firearms responsibly. I have engaged with all of them, and we have gone to great lengths to make sure we are weaving their experiences into our laws.

Therefore, rather than stoke fear and disinformation among Canadians, it would be far more productive if Conservatives were prepared to have a debate based on facts, not fear. That is what we are doing with other parties in this chamber, including the NDP and the Bloc, and I want to thank them for their collaboration on Bill C-21.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could provide his thoughts on not only how important the legislation is, but also on bringing in closure, as we are doing right now.

Conservatives have made it very clear that they have no intention of passing this legislation, so without bringing time allocation or closure there is no chance we would see it get passed. Indeed, the legislation is a reflection of what Canadians want to see of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on this side of the government aisle is correct. The vast majority of Canadians, approximately 80% of Canadians, support a national ban against AR-15 style, assault-style firearms. They support a national freeze on handguns.

Handguns have become the number one type of gun used in homicides. Canadians support and want to see action that will allow us to reverse the disturbing and alarming trends of domestic abuse and the presence of guns. Again, women are disproportionately victimized as a result of the presence of guns. We want to reverse those trends.

We want to save lives, which is precisely why we need to move forward with Bill C-21. Were it not for the Conservatives who continue to obstruct and obfuscate, we would be able to do that more quickly. That is why we are taking the step that we are today, and we will continue to engage with all Canadians so we can keep them safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have turned to their junior coalition partners to do their bidding at committee tonight. It is laughable that the NDP will call themselves the stewards of democracy and simultaneously support a motion like this.

The rural NDP members of Parliament, who all know Grandpa Joe, and once spoke for him, have completely abandoned him. The rural NDP members will need to go back to their communities to answer for this motion and for helping ram through this legislation in such a draconian way. It is simply not true that we are in charge of the government's legislative agenda and that we could somehow forever stop this legislation.

There are a lot of members who will have to go back to stand and explain why they did the Liberals' work for them by presenting this motion. They are the members for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, Courtenay—Alberni, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, North Island—Powell River, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Timmins—James Bay and Nunavut.

Can the Minister of Public Safety confirm that the NDP caucus, all of them, will be voting to support him and these Liberals in stripping law-abiding gun owners of their hunting rifles?

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

Mr. Speaker, that Conservative member knows full well that that is false. We are not at all targeting, with this legislation, law-abiding gun owners, and her repeated claims that it is true are simply misleading all Canadians.

Frankly, it is the other parties with whom we have been working across the aisle, and thanks to the advocacy of the extraordinary members of the Liberal caucus I get to work with, we are putting forward legislation that will save lives by ensuring that we take the next steps to strengthen a national ban on assault-style firearms, as the Mass Casualty Commission from Nova Scotia recommended that we do, by implementing, permanently, a national freeze on handguns, which have become the number one type of gun used in homicides.

Those are the types of responsible, evidence-based policies that will help to save lives. It is only the Conservatives who are out there in left field on their own on this issue, and they should be joining this debate to support these policies.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Conservatives name off a bunch of rural NDP ridings members who have brought to the attention of the government the need to ensure that indigenous peoples and rural hunters can keep their weapons.

This motion will get us back to the discussion of the amendments that are needed to improve and strengthen the bill. However, Conservatives do not want to do that. They would drag the bill out until 2027, so it would never happen.

We want to bring forward solutions so we can strengthen the bill to protect farmers and indigenous people, and ensure that we have a strong gun law. We could tackle ghost guns and support law enforcement so they are not on the frontline facing dangerous weapons.

The law-and-order party abandons our first responders, the police, who are asking us to take action and move forward with the bill. Maybe the public safety minister could speak about those frontline officers who are asking us to make those amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question from my NDP colleague.

In fact, just yesterday, I joined members from our caucus in Peel region to announce $390 million of support for the work of law enforcement, which they do each and every single day to keep our communities safe, including from gun violence.

My colleague from the NDP also mentioned his concerns with ghost guns, and I share those concerns. As a result of the ongoing and constructive dialogue we are having with the Bloc and the NDP on this side of the House, we will be able to take additional action against ghost guns. In fact, we just had the Americans in town a little less than two weeks ago, and we were able to reach four memorandums of agreement. One of those will be the use of new technology to crack down on ghost guns.

This is what Canadians want. They want parties to work together across partisan lines, and we are able to do that with the Bloc and the NDP. However, the Conservatives have only put forward simply stale and failed policies.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why it is so urgent that we cannot have proper debate in the committee. It is not a proper process to program a committee to immediately begin a process where we may end up not even knowing what members are voting on.

The question is as follows. Will the minister own up to the issue that he has created a mess at the committee with his leadership on his bill, or will he actually stop, step back and allow the process to go forward, ending in legislation that we may not agree with but that will be better because it will have been examined correctly?

I would also point out that I agree with the whip from my party. There are many B.C. NDP members who should think twice about going along with this minister's plan. It is shameful for democracy, and it is shameful for the minister to be invoking closure on a bill that he has garbled so badly.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be bad enough if all that the Conservatives wanted to do was just protract the debate on this so that they could obfuscate some more, but no, that is not all. They have openly campaigned, repeatedly, on a commitment to repeal the policies the government has put into place, including wanting to make AR-15 style firearms legal again. These are guns that were designed for the battlefield. It was the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission, which I know you, Mr. Speaker, are very familiar with, that recommended we take additional steps to strengthen that ban so that we could protect communities from another tragedy like the one we saw in Portapique and Truro.

We have been able to have those discussions with our colleagues in the NDP and the Bloc, and for that, I am grateful. It is only the Conservatives who are bending over backwards, doing everything they possibly can, to frustrate debate so they can prevent the passage of this bill into law. I think that is wrong. The Conservatives should reverse course so that we would be able to put this law into action and save lives.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to talk about Bill C-21 and to really stand up against it.

Getting an honest answer from the minister is difficult. We have tried. I remember being the one in SECU who actually got the witnesses to admit that law-abiding hunters' firearms were on the banned list. The Liberals have tipped their hand, and most firearms owners across the country know that. I have spoken with Liberal members of Parliament who do not necessarily like the way their own government is going on firearms.

This is really a call-out to the NDP. I just heard members from the island. I have been to the Campbell River Gun Club, where people brought huge concerns forward around Bill C-21 and the freedom to access their legally obtained firearms. Again, these are citizens who are vetted on a daily basis. The stats support that people who have a firearms licence are far less likely to commit a crime than an average citizen is. These are impeccable citizens being shown complete disrespect by the Liberal minister.

Again, my question for the New Democrat members is whether they will finally stand with their constituents and oppose this legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I know the hon. minister is not a member of the NDP, but he is the one answering the questions.

The hon. minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, everybody will be appreciative of that clarification.

The Conservative colleague across the aisle talks about his experience. I have met with gun owners in the Eskasoni First Nation community in Nova Scotia. I have met with gun owners in the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories, in British Columbia, in Ontario and, in fact, right across the country, for the express purpose of making sure that we get this bill right.

If the member opposite wants to talk about being honest and straight-up, then what he should do is be straight-up with the work that we are doing on this side of the House to make sure that we get this legislation—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when the member impugns my testimony, with respect to it not being straight-up, he is implying that I am lying to the House. I would expect that he would apologize for doing something indirectly that he is not supposed to do directly.