Debates of May 9th, 2023

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to disagree with the principle that I think is behind the parliamentary secretary's remarks and question.

Of course, amendments are always welcome, and they should be informed by feedback received from the public and committee, but I have to draw the line at the particular amendments that were introduced in November because those took everyone by surprise, and not just the committee members. They took indigenous communities by surprise. They took hunters and farmers by surprise. It was such a huge overreach from the bill we originally thought we were debating at second reading. When we started debating Bill C-21, its main provisions were on airsoft, red flag laws and a handgun freeze.

I want to take a moment to also thank members of the committee for passing my amendment on airsoft. That amendment was passed, and I am happy to report to the airsoft community that the offending section of Bill C-21 has now been removed, thanks to an NDP amendment. That is definitely a bright light in this whole journey.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a respected critic for public safety. We talk about surprises, and I was surprised.

I wonder if he could tell the House why he was removed as critic and why the leader of the NDP removed him at the height of Bill C-21, seeing as he represents rural Canadians so well in his riding, and replaced him with the NDP House leader, who is really an urban MP. I wonder if the member could explain that logic to the House.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with the member from the Conservative Party. I too have seen the rumours on Twitter and have been greatly amused by all of the different reasonings out there.

Let me say clearly and for the record that my moving off the public safety committee was done by mutual agreement. I am still a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. If the member will recall, at the time, I managed to bring forward two successful motions, one in the House of Commons and one at the agriculture committee, that focused the committee's investigative efforts on the role that corporate profits are playing in driving inflation, which is a huge issue not only for my constituents but also for the member's constituents.

It was agreed between me and the leader of the NDP that it was important for me to refocus my efforts on an issue that was affecting so many Canadians because of their purchasing power, their inability to buy sufficient groceries for their families and the incredible climb in food bank usage. That is the reason. It was mutual agreement and I had other extremely important work to take care of.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the very end of his speech, my colleague touched on the issue of red flags.

Between the Conservatives' disinformation and the lack of political will of the Liberal‑NDP coalition, there was a great deal of concern coming from women's groups. The issue of red flags was not clear.

My colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia talked about it earlier. This happened quickly this afternoon. Women's groups, including shelters, have reservations about the impact of this red flag provision.

For these reasons, given these reservations, my colleague would have voted against. I would like my colleague to tell us why the NDP voted in favour of a measure that is causing concern among women's groups and does not reassure them at all.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of the committee, but I can say from my time there and through close consultations with my NDP colleague from Winnipeg Centre, that many women raised concerns with the red flag provisions because many women right now have an incredibly difficult time trying to access basic protection from their local police service. I have heard those same arguments from many women's organizations. Their argument is a solid one. Their main question is this: If police services are inadequate and not living up to a standard that we all expect, why would someone in a domestic violence situation, under fear of their own life or fear of a loved one's life, be forced to go through an already overburdened court process to apply for a protection order?

During my time at committee, with many of the amendments that I put forward, which I cannot speak about in detail because they still have not been dealt with by the committee, my focus was very much on the yellow flag provisions, strengthening licensing requirements and empowering authorities to remove licences when there were definite examples of domestic violence and threats of violence. I want to particularly thank the National Association of Women and the Law because its submissions to our committee were extremely helpful in guiding many of our amendments.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard today, in the many interventions, of the technical aspects of this bill, the rights of hunters and farmers, the use of the tools and the specifics about the guns, but I do not think we have heard enough about the victims of gun violence. I am somebody who has had the heartbreak and tragedy of having attended funerals for gun violence. I think about Marley Rowe in 2014, and I think about the mass shooting that happened more recently in Vaughan, where my dear friend Doreen Di Nino was one of the lone survivors.

I wonder if the hon. member could reflect and re-centre the impact of gun violence on victims and on the work that he would wish to share for the benefit of this debate on the consultations that he has had with victims of gun violence. This intervention seeks to reduce the circulation of guns, introduce some kind of manufacturing accountability to tackle this new phenomenon of ghost guns and the idea that anybody at home with a 3-D printer can manufacture their own type of weapons. Could the hon. member just re-centre on the victims and talk about the ways this would hopefully help offset future tragedies?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre has a very thoughtful question, and he is extremely right. I am very fortunate to live in a riding that does not suffer from firearms violence, so I personally have never had that opportunity to grieve with families in my riding.

However, that does not take away from the testimony that we have heard at committee. It really goes right to our hearts when we hear survivors talk about their personal experiences, or the loss of a close personal friend or loved one within their family. All of us would do well to remember that ultimately our main goal is to make our streets safer for those people.

The member is also very right in raising the issue of ghost guns. We have heard testimony from multiple police agencies that this is an exponentially growing problem. The fact that people could construct a fully functioning firearm with zero traceability and no serial numbers or anything, all with the benefit and aid of a 3-D printer, is a very scary prospect. Police are on the record asking us to tighten up the legislation so we clamp down on who is able to import trigger assemblies, barrels and slides, and all of the other components that are necessary to manufacture a working firearm.

That is the important part of this bill that a lot of people are missing in all of their focus on the other aspects of this bill. There is still a lot in this bill that law enforcement has specifically asked for, and which I believe needs to be put up on a pedestal, on an equal plane of importance as all of those other elements.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by talking quickly about why I suggest every member should get behind this legislation. We hear about ghost guns. This problem is growing across Canada. These 3-D printers are capable of printing what we call ghost guns. No matter which municipalities one looks at, one will find stakeholders, including police and first responders, who say that the number of ghost guns is growing at a very concerning rate. These are untraceable because they do not have serial numbers. This is something very tangible that this legislation attempts to deal with, in good part.

Only the Conservative Party does not want to recognize those sorts of facts and allow the legislation to pass. The NDP speaker addressed it, at least in part, when he talked about the issue of money and fundraising. For those who are following the debate today, I would suggest that they not underestimate how much money the Conservatives have raised as a direct result of guns and rifles, and the type of misinformation they are prepared to share with Canadians to generate the money they have raised over the years. We are talking likely into the millions of dollars.

I became an MLA back in 1988, and the Polytechnique shooting occurred about a year and a half after I was elected. That is when the whole issue, from my perspective, came to the fore. Many people might not necessarily realize this, but after it came to the fore, it was a Progressive Conservative government, and I underline the word “progressive”, under Kim Campbell, that received the recommendation from a Conservative senator for a gun registry. They were moving toward it. That is probably not very well known in the reform Conservative circles today.

Today's Conservative Party is very different from the Progressive Conservative Party. Its members are far to the right. They have recognized this is an issue they can manipulate to get people angry, but to do that, they need to give out misinformation. A tangible example is that they will give the impression it is affecting hunting rifles. This is not in any form or way an attack on law-abiding gun owners, but we would not know it by the propaganda of the Conservatives.

They know this would not affect hunting firearms. They know that, but if we check social media, we will see what it is they are actually saying—

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

I believe there is a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, surely you must have heard some unparliamentary language in that discourse, which was full of misinformation, and quite frankly, full of lies.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I think the hon. member for Calgary Centre should withdraw that comment.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I do withdraw it.

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

Okay. That was not a point of order. It was a point of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend should take a look at many of the things Conservatives say, whether in question period or in other debates. I am being somewhat mild in my comments. I am being truthful, but mild.

There is a general feeling from Canadians that this is good legislation. It is legislation that should pass. It is with pleasure that we can say that we will finally see some movement on it. That is good for all Canadians.

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

It being 8:02 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 25 now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment 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.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote please.

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

Call in the members.

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

Vote #314

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

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 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.

The hon. official opposition whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

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

Vote #315

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

I declare the motion carried.

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

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will resume consideration on the privilege motion in the name of Mr. Chong.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.