Kevin Lamoureux

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[Indigenous Affairs, October 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, the government is doing its duty. I do not want to turn this into a political discussion, but I can cite many faults of the New Democratic government in Manitoba with regard to how it dealt with issues that are really important for indigenous people.

I will make this very clear. On nation-to-nation discussions, I can assure the House and Canadians that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been working diligently on a path forward. He is having regular discussions with first nations leadership to further implement the rights we have referenced.

I remind the House that it was made clear by the Supreme Court that the best vehicle for the Government of Canada to accommodate treaty rights is through consultations and negotiations. However, we all know negotiations take time. As these nation-to-nation discussions have been occurring, the minister recently named a neutral third party representative to help foster an understanding between first nations and commercial harvesters. This is a very—

[Indigenous Affairs, October 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, whether it is me now, ministers of the Crown or the Prime Minister, I think the government has been very clear in regard to the issue. The government does fully respect and affirms the right of the Mi'kmaq to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. There should be absolutely no doubt about that.

I found it interesting when the member was talking about the relationship. There has been lots of discussion to date on the issue and, no doubt, there will continue to be ongoing dialogue. I think that can be a very positive thing, especially having this issue brought up in the House. It never hurts to do that.

The member made reference to that relationship, and the relationship between the national government and indigenous peoples is in fact a very important one. It has been from day one and even before that. I have seen the Prime Minister's commitment and caring attitude in terms of indigenous peoples and wanting to establish that nation-to-nation level of respect. I have witnessed that in terms of the Prime Minister's establishment of two departments. I have seen ministers go out and do whatever they possibly can.

I can appreciate that it has been 25 years and that it would have been absolutely wonderful to see the negotiations get to a point where they would never hit what we have witnessed over the last number of weeks. Unfortunately, that is not the case. However, it is important that we are very clear that our government has always recognized and will continue to recognize and respect the affirmed treaty rights of the Mi'kmaq to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Also, every Canadian, everyone, deserves to be safe and be afforded equal protection. There is no question that this applies to all Mi'kmaq and to all Canadians.

The member made reference to incidents that have occurred that upset a great deal of Canadians, not only elected officials or people of indigenous backgrounds but Canadians and society as a whole. I have personally received, while representing the riding of Winnipeg North, many emails on the issue. I believe that the government for a long time now has been trying its best to get some sort of resolution to the seriousness of the issue. We have more than two ministers who have dedicated a great deal of their efforts, and the Prime Minister's Office continues to want to see progress on this file.

Whether from seeing videos or hearing indirectly through others about some of the things taking place, I have—

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it is about the border and the $390-million cut. That is a fact. The Conservatives might want to try to hide from it, but to say that it did not have an impact in terms of the services that we can provide at the borders and we are concerned about smuggling, and—

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, this morning is when I heard that the member was going to be bringing forward the legislation. I had this discussion about conflicting messages. There is a bit of a conflicting message. I want to share with members something that somewhat surprised me when I found out this had taken place in committee.

We had Bill C-71, something with which Conservatives had a great deal of difficulty. From what I understand, at the committee stage, there was an amendment brought forward. I am sure members will see the relevancy to this legislation, because this legislation seems to be at odds with what Conservatives were proposing through an amendment.

In the amendment to Bill C-71, the act is amended and this is in essence what it said. The act would be amended to the following, referencing section 11:

Despite sections 109 and 111, no person guilty of an offence set out in those sections is liable to imprisonment if, in the commission of the offence, the person causes no bodily harm to another person.

Sections 109 and 111 in the Firearms Act refer to deliberately lying in order to get a firearms licence, tampering with firearms licence or registration certificate, operating an illegal firing range, ensuring prohibited firearms are safely stored and, this one I find interesting, penalties for lying to a customs officer about a firearm or for falsifying a customs officer's confirmation document.

They wanted to remove penalties for cross-border trafficking. It seems to me that it makes a reference. The member from Red Deer was one of the members. I am not too sure if the member introducing the bill was at that committee. When we take into consideration some of the previous actions of the Conservatives, one could be a little surprised in terms of the legislation that we have here today.

Canadians are genuinely concerned. As my colleague from Toronto talked about earlier, with a great deal of passion, there are many members of this Parliament who are very passionate because they have directly or indirectly seen the harm of governments' not taking actions that are necessary in order to make our communities safer.

I think, for example, of when the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness stands up and talks about the banning of military assault-style weapons as something that Canadians want to see, yet on the Conservative opposition benches we are constantly criticized for that. It is almost as if many Conservatives are not really understanding the issue that we are trying to address: safer communities. Some of the actions that we have taken as a government, I believe, reinforce it, yet we get mixed messaging coming from the Conservative ranks.

We recognize that smuggling is a very serious issue, and yet Stephen Harper cut hundreds of millions of dollars from Canada border control officers. These are the types of things that send mixed messages, and I think it is because the Conservatives' primary concern is more about spin than it is about—

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member sharing her thoughts and in particular highlighting some individuals. Part of this debate, from its origins five or six years ago, was the citations from real people about what is happening in their lives. We have looked at those as well as the court decisions that have taken place, and listened to the literally thousands of Canadians throughout the country who have had the opportunity to participate and provide information. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have provided input.

I believe the legislation before us is fairly good, in that it puts us in a place where the bill can be sent to committee and the member can hopefully get some of her concerns addressed. I am wondering if the member supports the bill being sent to committee, at the very least, to hear some others' thoughts and maybe get some of her questions answered.

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, since November or December of 2015, there has been a great deal of debate on the important issue of medical assistance in dying. At the beginning of 2020, a massive input was solicited. We received input from Canadians in all regions of the country, over 300,000 Canadians. There has been ongoing consultations, discussions and debates over the last number of years.

The bill before us is because of a court ruling. After the legislation has passed, it does not prevent us from continuing discussions on this. I wonder if the member would recognize that this is something we are not only being compelled to do, but in fact it is the right thing to be doing at this time.

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation, which, in essence, comes out of a court ruling. The debate in the House really began on this issue after the last federal election, again due to a Supreme Court ruling. Listening to the many speeches on this has been very touching. I suspect it will receive unanimous support, at least I am hopeful it will.

In debate, a lot of members have been talking about related issues, such as the importance of palliative care and the need to do more in that area. To that extent, I would ask my colleague what her thoughts are on how important it is for the federal government to be working with provincial governments in dealing with some of the issues we have before us, including palliative care.

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

And one or more members having risen:

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see support for this legislation from members of the Bloc. The member raises a number of concerns. I think those will be dealt with after the bill gets through second reading and goes to committee. It should be an interesting committee, to say the very least, as I am sure it will want to hear a number of presenters. The minister himself has indicated his willingness to listen to what opposition parties have to say.

I am wondering if the member could indicate whether the Bloc has some amendments in mind at this time.