Larry Miller

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very clear and obvious that the government, the minister, is trying to pretend that safeguards for health care professionals, doctors, etc., are there and they are protected. It is clear to most Canadians, including a lot who voted for the government, that the safeguards are not in place.

I find it ironic that a few weeks or months ago we were all saddened to hear about the rash of suicides in Attawapiskat, and all of a sudden we switch gears and we are into a bill that is basically suicide in another form.

[Criminal Code, May 31st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill today in the House of Commons and share my time with the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the legislation, as I said. I have had the honour of being a member of Parliament since 2004. I can honestly say that this is one of the most sensitive and controversial pieces of legislation that I have spoken to in the House. This is an issue that many Canadians have very strong opinions on, so it very important that throughout this process we respect all sides and ensure that we can come up with the best legislation possible, which responds to as many concerns as possible.

Today I would like to share some of my personal opinions on the legislation, as well as the expressed opinions of my constituents, many whom I have heard from. My vote on the bill will be based on what my constituents want and what my own conscience is telling me.

I recently wrote an op-ed in my local newspapers and distributed it to all media in the riding to connect with and consult with my constituents on the bill. I asked them to send their concerns to my office so that when I vote on the bill, I can be confident that I am voting in a manner that represents the views of my constituents. As of right now, the majority of my constituents, almost 80%, have told me to vote against the legislation. I want to point out that some of them are totally opposed to the bill and some would support some small amendments but are against it in its current form.

Emails and letters are still coming in as we speak. The main concerns that have been presented by those who disagree with the bill are the need for further protections for the vulnerable, further protections for the conscience rights of health care workers, and the need for an improved national palliative care strategy.

I share many of the same concerns as my constituents. It is absolutely vital that there are safeguards for those who are vulnerable. For me, this includes three different groups of people. The first group would be children. We need to have a more robust discussion and study whether children under 18 years old should be allowed access to physician-assisted dying and who has the authority to make that decision.

Second, it is paramount that those who have debilitating diseases, such as Alzheimer's, have a number of safeguards to ensure that they have fully consented to physician-assisted death while they were in a sound state of mind. The bill, as it is currently drafted, has a number of important first steps, but I feel it could go much further. The question is simple. Are there enough safeguards? Are we certain that we have it right?

I appreciate the work that was done by the special committee that was struck to hold consultations before drafting the bill and also the work done by the justice committee. This has been a very one-sided and rushed process. When it comes to protecting the vulnerable, I do not want to leave any stone unturned. A matter like this deserves an intense and lengthy study by parliamentarians, all parliamentarians. It is very disturbing to know that at this point the government is not willing to have that full debate.

Furthermore, it was made very clear in the House last night that the government is not willing to even entertain the notion of adopting any amendments, and that is wrong. On such a sensitive matter, it would have been my hope that the government would take a more sincere approach to working with other parties in an attempt to get the bill right.

A number of important amendments that would have addressed some very serious concerns were voted down by the government last night. I was deeply disappointed to see partisanship take precedence over common sense. It was refreshing to see some individuals, in all parties, vote according to their consciences and beliefs. That does not happen enough in this place, so I thank those members.

Finally is the question of whether the bill would allow those with mental illnesses to have access to physician-assisted death, as expressed by some of my colleagues. I would be very troubled if this was the case. It is my firm belief that mental illness is, in fact, an illness.

That being said, I would find it very troubling if an individual who was suffering from a mental illness had access to physician-assisted death. Mental illness quite possibly could mean that someone in a very poor state of mind, to use that terminology, could ask for assisted suicide when he or she would in all likelihood maybe not make this choice if in a sound state of mind. I believe this would send a wrong message to others suffering from mental illness. I am afraid that it would encourage more suicide, assisted or otherwise.

There are many groups in my riding who have put in a tremendous amount of work to combat mental illness and educate those suffering with mental illness that help is always available. We need to send that message that help is always available. Being able to seek physician-assisted death for a mental illness would, in my mind, run counter to this work. This is another area that deserves much closer study so that we as members of Parliament can be confident that the bill would not allow this.

Furthermore, National Nursing Week was only a few weeks ago. In light of this, it is very important to reiterate that we need robust protections for the conscience rights of health care professionals. Last night, the government had an opportunity to recognize the conscience rights of health care professionals, but chose not to take it. An amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan would have recognized that medical practitioners and health care professionals are free to refuse to provide direct or indirect medical assistance in dying. Unfortunately the government voted against this amendment.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms”. What is first on that list? It is freedom of conscience and religion. I urge the government to put partisanship aside and recognize the charter rights of health care professionals. No one should be forced to perform any task that goes against his or her freedom of conscience or beliefs.

I am not trying to reopen a previous debate held in the House, but I have to use an example that is very similar to the point that I am trying to make right now. Therefore, I would compare this to ministers or clergy who do not believe in performing same-sex marriages. Freedom of conscience and religion are fundamental freedoms that protect individuals who do not wish to take part in something that runs counter to their beliefs. This same kind of thing is not in the bill. Simply put, someone should not be required to participate in something or provide any service that she or he does not believe in. This must be an important consideration in designing the regulatory framework. Again, I wish that we had more time to hear from concerned health care professionals about this.

I would like to conclude with a comment on the timeline of this issue, and voice my concerns around putting forward legislation in such a rushed manner.

As I said earlier, I have been a member of Parliament since 2004, and in that 12 years that I have spent in this place, this bill is near or at the top of the list of the most intense and deeply sensitive matters I have spoken to.

I fully recognize, as we all do in the House, the limitations on the orders that come from the Supreme Court. However, having said that, rushing through the bill and getting it not right is not worth the sake of a few days or weeks, whatever it takes. I urge all members to think about that. June 6 is a date that everybody has hard ingrained in their minds, but I am quite sure the courts would allow flexibility.

Let us take the time and do it right. Given the sensitivity and public concern with this issue, I do not think that it is appropriate or prudent to rush through this process. I fully understand that there is a stated deadline, as I said, that the court has given Parliament to have it done. However, with this in mind, once again I have to point out that I have a number of concerns with the Supreme Court's limiting the ability of members of Parliament to have the time to have a robust debate and to allow for a more intense study of this important issue.

On too many instances I have heard some members say they will just have to revisit this in the future or they will revisit that part of it, as if they are admitting that this is a flawed bill, and it is a flawed bill. As members of Parliament I do not think that we can—

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the answer simply is no, it would not. In fact, it would do the opposite. It will clarify the definition so that we take out a wide range of interpretations. Sometimes when we use the number “4,000”, a lot of people say, “Whoa, that's opening it up to something we don't want.” That is not the case, at all.

When we have a term like “variant”, which is mentioned almost 100 times, I believe it is exactly 97 times in the Firearms Act, and there is no clear definition of what that is, I think it is very logical and understandable that from time to time, and far too often, we have misinterpretations of what is trying to be explained.

I think the bill will fix a huge problem, not create one. That is certainly not the intent. As a firearms owner and law-abiding citizen, that is the last thing that I want. As I said earlier, I am willing to talk or work with anyone in order to make this a better bill, if that is possible.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, not only for seconding the bill, but for a great question. He is also chair of the all-party outdoors caucus, which I know has wide support for my bill.

It is not a partisan issue. Regardless of one's politics, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. From comments I have heard from some colleagues in all parties in the House, I think that is recognized. I will let the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and others speak on this, but I believe we all realize that this is a problem. It is not a partisan problem. It is something that can be fixed by us all working together here.

This bill is my approach to how we get there, but I am willing to look at anything that will address this.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 2016]

moved that Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearm — definition of variant), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearm — definition of variant). This is a straightforward piece of legislation that will provide much-needed clarity for law-abiding firearms owners across Canada.

Today, I would like to explain to the House why I am bringing this legislation forward, the problems surrounding variant firearms, how this legislation will help solve the problem, and why I believe this bill should be considered further at committee.

Before I do so, I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies for seconding the bill and for all of the important work that he does for hunters, anglers, and sports shooters in Canada.

I have owned and handled firearms for a number of years, basically all of my life. I am a very proud and law-abiding gun owner. However, one thing that has always bugged me and irritated a lot of law-abiding gun owners and hunters is the stigma that some people attach to the firearms community. Let me be very clear: owning a gun does not make someone a criminal. As I said, I am a law-abiding gun owner. I have many friends and family who are law-abiding gun owners. Most people who own firearms in Canada are law-abiding gun owners.

Sadly, though, time and time again, we see gun owners who are presumed to be dangerous. The stigma has worked its way into our regulatory system and, in my mind, it is high time that we bring some common sense, fairness, and clarity to the system.

There were two pieces of legislation, which were brought in under the previous Conservative government, that worked toward creating a better system for law-abiding firearms owners in Canada. I was proud to support Bill C-19, Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, and was pleased that it received royal assent in 2012. This legislation was extremely important to hunters and firearms owners across the country. The long-gun registry was a colossal waste of money, was ineffective, and it simply did not make sense.

Furthermore, in 2015, Bill C-42, Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, received royal assent. Measures in this bill included merging the POL and PAL licences, giving the Governor in Council the ability to reverse arbitrary firearms classification decisions, a grace period at the expiry of licences, authorizations to transport as conditions of licence, mandatory firearms safety courses for first-time gun owners, and prohibitions for those who are convicted of domestic violence offences. That is just to name a few of the measures.

These were all very common-sense reforms that were welcomed by firearms owners across the country. I would like to highlight one of the measures in particular, as it deals directly with the purpose of my Bill C-230.

Bill C-42 came in response to a seemingly random classification decision in 2014 regarding the Swiss Arms Classic Green rifles. This was a decision that was made overnight, wherein the RCMP classified the Swiss Arms as a variant of the SG 540, a restricted firearm in Canada.

There were a number of problems that resulted from this decision. Since 2001, the Swiss Arms rifles had been legal, non-restricted firearms in Canada, and with the stroke of a pen, many owners of these firearms found themselves in unlawful possession, without a clear explanation of the decision to reclassify. In simple terms, one night these guns were legal, and the next morning they were not. I think members can understand the frustration of law-abiding gun owners.

This all stems from the fact that there is no legal definition for the term “variant”. Firearms are under the purview of two different acts in Canada, part three of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. These two acts form the basis for the regulatory framework that is used when it comes to firearms. Specifically when it comes to classifications of firearms, it is the Criminal Code and the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, that are the two important legislative pieces.

Furthermore, it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Canadian firearms program that is responsible for the administration of legislation and regulations, which includes determining the classification of firearms based upon criteria in the Criminal Code.

It has been in my mind, and in the minds of many other firearms owners across Canada, that there is a significant disconnect between the legislation and regulations surrounding the term variant. This term is used nearly 100 times in the regulations to classify firearms as prohibited, restricted, or non-restricted, but there is no clear sense of what this term actually means. It has been used extensively to reclassify firearms in cases similar to the Swiss Arms decision, without any clear explanation of the purpose for the reclassification. In simple terms, it is continually misinterpreted, and therein lies the problem.

Firearms owners have been left scratching their heads wondering how is it possible for these seemingly random decisions to be made. This is my reason for bringing this legislation forward. We need some clarity here. There is no room for vague interpretation on a case-by-case basis. In fact, if the bill were passed, it should actually make the job of RCMP members who are responsible for this law much easier.

As legislators, it is our job to ensure that those who are tasked with interpreting the laws we create are clear on the intentions of the legislation. This would provide clarity, not only for firearms owners but, as I said, also for the RCMP firearms program. They will finally have a benchmark on which they will be able to make clear and consistent classification decisions.

Bill C-230 proposes that a variant of a firearm be defined as “a firearm that has the unmodified frame or receiver of another firearm”. This will ensure that firearms that are classified as variants do in fact share fundamental mechanical pieces and therefore warrants the firearm to have the same classification as the previously classified firearm.

Having this definition added to the Criminal Code will ensure that the regulations surrounding firearms classifications are well informed and consistent with the intent of the legislation on which they are based. It will eliminate inconsistent and arbitrary interpretation and provide much-needed clarity for firearms owners and, as I always like to point out, law-abiding firearms owners.

It is rare that a piece of legislation is perfect on the first draft, and I want to pledge that my goal is to fix a problem. I have worked with a lot of people on this, and I am willing to work with the government to fix a problem that needs to be fixed. Basically, I am saying that if there is an amendment to the bill that makes it better, I am open to it and we will see where it goes. There may be members and outside stakeholders who will have concerns with certain elements of the bill. I welcome all feedback.

I feel that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security would be the perfect place to have this discussion. I see both the chair of that committee and the parliamentary secretary are here today. I want to thank both of them for their interest in being here and hearing what I have to say on the bill.

I see this legislation as less of a partisan matter and more a matter of clarity and responsible legislation. No matter what one's ideology on firearms and gun control is, I think that all members can and should agree that we need clear legislation that is free of vague and inconsistent interpretation. This is what I am hoping to accomplish with the bill.

Finally, I would like to thank the Canadian Shooting Sports Association for all of the help and guidance it has provided in the drafting of the bill. The CSSA knows this issue well and has heard loud and clear from its members that this problem must be solved. President Tony Bernardo and his team have been strong advocates for this legislation, and I would like to thank them for that support and for their input.

I also want to thank Mr. Greg Farrant of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters for his input as well, and the many responsible firearms owners across the country I have heard from. I have received support and suggestions from firearms owners in every province and territory across this country, and I still welcome that.

In closing, I want to make it very clear that I fully support good regulation and legislation that ensures that only responsible Canadians own and operate firearms in this country. Criminals and irresponsible gun owners affect the reputation of people like me, and all law-abiding gun owners. We do not want or need that.

Leaving it at that, I look forward to the debate today in the first hour of second reading. I am very happy to take questions from my honourable colleagues.

[Sports Hall of Fame Inductees, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I was honoured to attend the induction ceremony for 10 new inductees into the Owen Sound Sports Hall of Fame.

Owen Sound is truly a hotbed for talented hockey, lacrosse, and fastball players, and this year's inductees are a testament to this. Athletes Curtis Sanford, Marilyn McComb, Jeff MacDougald, Don MacLeod and Jim “Chipper” McCrea made for an impressive group of inductees this year.

The class of 2016 also included Brian Seaman under the Builder category.

Special merit inductees included Peter Raynsford, Robert Aitken, and Mr. John Garvey who umpired for more than 70 years.

Finally, the 1977 King Farms fastball team was also inducted. In 1977 the King Farms team defeated Sault Ste. Marie to win the OASA all-Ontario championship.

I extend my congratulations to each of this year's inductees and thank them for the many years of sporting memories.

[Petitions, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today to present a petition signed by 138 of my constituents to ensure Canadians have a fair electoral system.

[Criminal Code, February 24th, 2016]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearm—definition of variant).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to table this important legislation today in the House for first reading.

The term “variant” is used 99 times in the regulations in the Firearms Act to classify firearms. However, it is not actually defined anywhere in the legislation. This vagueness has resulted in a number of inconsistent and confusing classifications over the years that were based on an interpretation of what variant was meant to mean.

This legislation would provide a definition for “variant” to ensure that we would have a very clear, consistent, and fair firearms' classification system. It is not a controversial bill.

I look forward to working with all my colleagues in the House on both sides, including the government, on this very important legislation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Public Safety, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the security of Canadians should be the number one priority for any government. We all know, as well, that the Liberals have been putting Canadians at risk by fast-tracking refugees into the country in order to meet their election quota.

I have a simple question for the minister. Of the total number of refugees accepted, what percentage were given extra security screening?

[The Liberal Party of Canada, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it would appear as though the sunny ways are over. On February 2, Wiarton Willie predicted that we are in for a long cold winter, and so far he seems to be right, at least when it comes to the current Liberal government.

Now, do not let the member for Cape Breton—Canso and the infamous Shubenacadie Sam fool you with their predictions of an early spring and more sunny ways. Canadians from coast to coast to coast know that they are in for a cold one, with deficits and federal spending spiralling out of control and the government committing to backing away from the fight against ISIS. I know that Wiarton Willie certainly would not cut and run.

Surely, Sam will point to his buddy in Balzac for support. Balzac Billy also predicted that we were in for an early spring, but poor Billy and the member for Banff—Airdrie have not been sure which way to turn since the NDP took over in Alberta.

At least we can trust Wiarton Willie to give us the cold hard truth. With the current Liberal government at the helm, we are in for a long cold winter.