House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act First reading of Bill C-245. The bill proposes to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, as the Bloc Québécois argues Canadian multiculturalism conflicts with Quebec's interculturalism model and its identity as a nation. 200 words.
Criminal Code First reading of Bill C-246. The bill amends the Criminal Code to mandate consecutive sentences for sexual offences, rather than concurrent ones. The sponsor states this prioritizes victims and ensures each crime carries its own penalty. 400 words.
Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces Members debate a Bloc Québécois motion urging the federal government to withdraw from a Supreme Court challenge to Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State and the use of the notwithstanding clause. Bloc members argue the intervention undermines Quebec's parliamentary sovereignty and distinct values. Liberals contend the government has a duty to intervene to clarify the notwithstanding clause's constitutional limits and protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from erosion. Conservatives accuse the Liberals of creating a constitutional crisis to distract from other issues. 53100 words, 7 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, it should not have been a surprise.
We have held the same position for years. When the case reached the Supreme Court of Canada, we filed an intervention. It is very important for the federal government to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and defend the rights of people across the country.
As the member knows full well, the case ended up at the Supreme Court of Canada. We filed our intervention. That is all.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are doing more than just challenging Bill 21. They want a say in all Quebec legislation. Their factum implies that Quebeckers lack the judgment to be allowed to pass their own laws without Ottawa's oversight. As proof, they offer utterly apocalyptic examples, such as the possibility that Quebec might use the notwithstanding clause to legalize slavery or arbitrary executions.
Those who cannot come up with an argument resort to exaggeration. Given that their factum contains no arguments, perhaps they should just withdraw it.
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned exaggeration. Considering the speech she just gave, that is a bit rich.
She is well aware that the answer to her question is in her question. Obviously, the courts cannot change the Constitution. The point of our intervention is not to enable the courts to change the Constitution. As she said yesterday, the only entity that can change the Constitution is Parliament. The point of our intervention is not to change the Constitution, but to protect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing.
If the Liberals want to amend the Constitution and section 33, the notwithstanding clause, let them launch constitutional negotiations. Let them reopen the Constitution if they want to change its rules. Let them treat Quebec and the provinces as equal partners in a public debate instead of going through the courts. Let them respect their own federation. Let them behave like democrats.
Will the Liberals withdraw their factum, which is insulting to Quebeckers, and withdraw from the challenge to Bill 21?
Sean Fraser LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we do not want to change the Constitution.
We want to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify the Constitution. It is very important for the federal government to defend our Constitution. Now, the case is before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the appropriate forum for presenting arguments, not the House of Commons.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, gun crime is up 130% under the Liberal government, and what is the Liberals' answer? It is to target law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.
The public safety minister was caught on leaked audio accidentally telling the truth about the Liberal gun buyback scheme. He admitted it is not worth the money, that it will go over budget, that it is politically motivated and all for optics, and, worst of all, that it is not even going to work, yet the Prime Minister is telling the minister to go full steam ahead.
The minister is actively trying to sell a program that he admits will waste $750 million and not improve public safety. Why will the Prime Minister not just fire the minister?
Nathalie Provost LiberalSecretary of State (Nature)
Mr. Speaker, allow me to start by setting the record straight.
The program announced at midday today is intended to collect assault-style weapons. It has no impact on hunting. I repeat, this program has no impact on hunting. No reasonable hunter uses assault-style weapons for hunting, and those are the weapons that will be collected. That is what was announced today. This is a program that all Canadians have been waiting for. It started in 1989 after the femicide, and it is still true to this day. We are going to get hits done.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, it was the public safety minister who set the record straight when he was caught on tape saying that this program will not do a thing for public safety. The Liberals are not taking guns away from criminals; they are letting criminals out on the street, and now they are diverting $750 million that could go to things that would protect Canadians. That is money being diverted away from the border, where illegal guns and drugs could be stopped. It is $750 million that is not going to new border agents to deport foreign criminals.
Why will the Prime Minister not just do the right thing and fire the incompetent public safety minister?
Nathalie Provost LiberalSecretary of State (Nature)
Mr. Speaker, I will try this in English. Maybe the member will understand it a bit more.
This program is to remove from the hands of Canadians firearms designed to kill people, not for hunting. It is not a waste of money, because Canadians want those firearms off the streets. They voted for us. We said we would do that. We will do that.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, in a leaked audio recording, the Liberal public safety minister said that the Liberals' gun buyback program will not keep Canadians safe and is a waste of money. We agree on both counts, but he is pressing ahead, and he launched an assault on licensed law-abiding gun owners today. Gun crime is up 130% under the Liberals, the Liberal minister and the Prime Minister.
The minister's job is to keep Canadians safe, and he is saying himself that this $750-million program will not do that. Will the Prime Minister fire his minister?
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify what we are doing.
First and foremost, what the member opposite said is factually incorrect. I support this policy. That is why I brought it forward today at 12:30 this afternoon. I, along with several of my colleagues, as well as the police chief of Cape Breton and the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, announced the compensation program as a pilot first in Nova Scotia, and we will be expanding it across Canada. I invite the party opposite to get on board to ensure that guns are off our streets.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, please accept my apologies if I do not take the public safety minister at his word today and if, instead, we take him at his word from Monday, when he said that the program was a waste of money and was not going to keep Canadians safe.
If it is such a good idea and it is not going to target people who are not breaking the law, why was he offering to bail his buddy out of jail? How could his friend be targeted unless, of course, the program was going to target licensed, law-abiding firearms owners?
The OPP has said no, it will not participate. A Crown corporation, Canada Post, will not participate. It is $750 million that could hire cops to keep Canadians safe. That is not what they are focused on.
Will the PM fire the minister?
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we were able to launch the assault-style firearms compensation program. It starts, first off, in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia with a pilot, which will last for five to seven weeks. From there we will expand it across Canada. This is what Canadians voted for on April 28. They gave us a mandate to implement the program, and we will be implementing the program. We will ensure that prohibited weapons, including AR-15s, are off our streets.
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that after the Liberals released violent offenders and targeted law-abiding citizens of this country, such as sports shooters or hunters, gun crime has actually surged by 130% under the Liberal government. The public safety minister admits that it is simply a gun grab rather than accomplishing anything good for Canadians. He has confessed he does not know what an RPAL is, and he has sponsored a bill that undermines civil liberties. He is mired in conflict of interest concerns.
Would the Prime Minister finally do the right thing and fire the incompetent minister?
Buckley Belanger LiberalSecretary of State (Rural Development)
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke in French, and then she spoke in English, and the Tories still did not get it, so I will speak slowly.
This is not about hunting. This is not about infringing upon people who are out there legally hunting. I have met a lot of people from rural Saskatchewan and northern Saskatchewan who enjoy hunting. This is not about hunting; it is about stopping the violence, stopping the AK-47s from crossing our border and keeping—
FirearmsOral Questions
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety was recorded admitting that the Liberals' gun buyback program is not worth the $750 million he is about to spend on it. As he knows and as we know, this program will only frustrate good citizens, like sport hunters. It will not reduce gun crime, which, I should note, has increased by 130% under the Liberal government.
Canadians have no confidence in this minister to introduce a policy that he personally acknowledges is ineffective. The only choice left to him is to resign. Will he resign?
Nathalie Provost LiberalSecretary of State (Nature)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question in French.
As we all know, and as the member is aware, the Polytechnique tragedy started a movement among Canadians to get assault-style firearms off our streets. This is so important in Quebec that we are continuing to register long guns, and my colleague voted for that.
What we are doing today will not affect hunters who use reasonable weapons for hunting. It will not affect sport shooters. Only guns intended to kill will be collected.
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, here is the situation.
Because of the Liberals, gun-related crime has increased by 130%. This is a fact.
The Minister of Public Safety has acknowledged that the gun buyback program is purely political. This is another fact. He acknowledges that it is ineffective. It is no secret.
The minister is failing at keeping Canadians safe. Will the Prime Minister demand the minister's resignation, yes or no?
Nathalie Provost LiberalSecretary of State (Nature)
Mr. Speaker, lying in my hospital bed 35 years ago, I did not understand what was happening. I could not understand how such a thing could happen to me in a country like Canada.
In January 1990, I attended the first press conference surrounded by the families of the École Polytechnique students, who were calling for a ban on assault-style weapons.
I will continue to be an advocate. However, the most important thing is what we are doing and what Canadians want, what they voted for.
We will see this through to the end. Hunters will continue to hunt and shooters will continue to shoot.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' challenge to Bill 21 goes far beyond state secularism. They are telling us with their factum that they have seen what Quebeckers have done with secularism, and at this point, they would even be capable of shutting down churches or newspapers if Ottawa were not there to stop them.
The Liberals want to weaken the notwithstanding clause so that the federal government and, of course, federally appointed judges have the final say on all laws passed in Quebec. In Quebec, we would call that being placed under guardianship. What Canada calls it, I do not know.
Can the minister enlighten us?
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry, but what my colleague is saying is simply not true. Our intervention before the Supreme Court is aimed at defending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are the party of the charter. We have always defended it, and we will always continue to defend it.
Just last week, one province announced that it would be using the notwithstanding clause in three bills at the same time. That is three bills in one province. When provinces and territories decide to invoke the notwithstanding clause, we want the courts to be able to tell the citizens of those provinces that their rights are being violated. That is what we are asking the Supreme Court to do.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, amending the scope of section 33 is not about defending the charter.
The Liberals want Bill 21 on state secularism to be repealed. That much is crystal clear. However, it goes beyond that. They want to have the final say and make Quebec's laws subject to their approval and that of judges appointed by Ottawa.
The Liberals want to fulfill their oldest ambition, which is to decide everything for everyone in Canada. If that is what Quebeckers have to look forward to, then I wonder what we are still doing here.
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, in the last election, Quebeckers voted in twice as many Liberals as Bloc Québécois representatives. I repeat, twice as many. Why did they do that? It is because they know that we will be there to defend their rights, but they also know that we are capable of working with the provinces and territories.
Just last week, I was with two Quebec government representatives to announce a 20,000-unit project, including 10,000 non-market housing units. We are capable of working with the provinces and territories while defending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister's number one job is to keep Canadians safe. Instead he is blowing taxpayer dollars on a gun buyback program he knows will fail. The Toronto Police Association has slammed it as useless, and it is right.
Almost every gun used in Toronto crime last year was smuggled. The overwhelming majority were from the U.S., yet the minister is attacking law-abiding Canadians, knowing full well that his program will not work.
The minister has failed to do his job. Will the Prime Minister fire the incompetent minister?
