Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 76 - 90 of 958
View Jaime Battiste Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Jaime Battiste Profile
2021-06-01 21:18 [p.7802]
Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beaches—East York.
By now, Canadians are deeply saddened and disturbed with the recent discovery in Kamloops of the bodies of 215 children at the Indian residential school.
I have spoken in the House before about the TRC findings that one in 25 children who went to these schools did not come home. In comparison, one in 26 soldiers who served in World War II did not come home. World War II lasted six years, whereas many Indian residential schools lasted more than 40 years.
Tragically, we now see the evidence. We now have heard the proof of what the TRC has stated, what authors like Isabelle Knockwood wrote in her book Out of the Depths about the residential school in Shubenacadie. Tragically, we are hearing the information now in our heads. Many of us are now feeling it in our hearts as well. It is within our hands to take action with the head, the heart and the hands.
I have spent most of my adult life teaching, researching and presenting on the horrors of Indian residential schools, as a professor at Cape Breton University, as a treaty education lead for Nova Scotia and now as an MP in the House of Commons.
The TRC's calls to action are a blueprint for moving forward in the country. While we have supported and passed in the House two pieces of legislation, it is important that we reflect and work with all levels of government to do more. Many are in our hands within the federal government to change. I am willing to work with everyone to find solutions to move forward.
However, many of the calls to action speak to law societies, law schools, faith denominations; municipal and provincial governments. I would like to stress that we need to work with our provinces and our municipal governments, all people, especially around calls to action 10 and 62 that talk about the increased need for education in Canada and for us to understand, for every Canadian, every grade and every school to understand, what happened in the residential schools. I invite all parliamentarians, provincial premiers and departments of education to not hide the dark chapters of our country. Let us learn from them.
It is also important for all those speaking their language today, practising their culture today through songs, dances and ceremonies to be supported by all levels of government.
For all those indigenous peoples practising their culture, teaching their languages and promoting their languages, I thank to them today. Let us not let this debate be in vain. Let the words we speak tonight build on a better future that supports, protects and promotes indigenous peoples in all our ridings.
After speaking to my elders and leaders within the Mi’kmaq communities that I represent, they advised me that the strongest way that I, as an indigenous member of Parliament, could bring honour to those lives that were taken and for all those survivors was to show that the very language and culture that was once threatened with cultural genocide is now being shared, promoted and spoken within the House of Commons.
[Member spoke in Mi’kmaq and provided the following text:]
Msit Nokumaq
Ke’skmnaq kaqewistuan
Pasi’k ketu Tlimuloq
Kejutuek tan telji olai’utkik Kikmnaqi’k
Kejituek tan telji olo’ta’snik mijuajijk aq pukolkik mu apajitakik
Aq nutaq me’ msit Kapalnukw, akatmnew tan teluwi’tmi’tij kisikuk L’joqotukemkewey kis na reconciliation.
Nasik tan anki’tetmanek tal kis miawalkik telji pukolkik tan weni’k Wejitajik residential schools
Amujpa kinawa’ta’qik msit wen wula wenji’kwuom, ujit msit tan weji’tasnik aq olaitkik
mu kespu’tuwu’wek, me’ elmotiek, me’ mimaju’lltiek, me’ lnuistikw, me lnu’tasltikw.
Keji’tu mu na naqmasi’anuk tan wejitaik, Nasik pipanmlnoq siawi lnuitasimk, siawi lnusltinoq aq mu iajpu awantasu tan weni’n aq tan wejitaik.
Aq Nekmey, teli siawi’ta’tisnuk elmiknek, mawi apoqnmatultinej
Kisi Api’jatisnu’kw Taqu’we’ entu’kpnek
Msit Nokmaq
[Member provided the following translation:]
All my relations, before I conclude my thoughts today, I just want to tell everyone that we understand how mistreated our indigenous families have been. We understand how mistreated our children were and how so many did not come home.
We need all of government to take a look at how we can restore the balance to our communities or what is often referred to as “reconciliation”.
However, when I thought of how we could best honour our survivors of residential schools, I have to say to all the members of our House of Commons, on behalf of all who went and were mistreated, they were not successful. We are still here, we are resilient, we still speak our languages and we practise our culture.
I know it has been difficult, with what we have been through, however I am asking indigenous people to keep their culture strong, to keep speaking their languages, and to never forget who they are as an indigenous person and what we have been through.
That is how we flourish and survive moving forward by working together. We can bring back some of what was lost, all my relations.
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
View Michael McLeod Profile
2021-06-01 21:59 [p.7809]
Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I appreciate the time I have to speak tonight, and I am glad another prolonged Standing Committee on Finance meeting ended in time for me to do so.
I ran for the member of Parliament position to help my constituents. Unapologetically, and with everything I do here, my goal is to try to improve their lives and those of their children. Those are my marching orders.
Indigenous constituents make up 50% of the population in the Northwest Territories, and the Northwest Territories has the highest per capita number of residential school survivors, and “survivor” is the accurate term. Those who came home from many of these schools are literally survivors, as has been so shockingly illustrated this past week by the discovery of all those children, those babies in Kamloops.
I am not surprised many Canadians are shocked. However, I am not shocked and neither are many indigenous families. In my hometown of Fort Providence, I can visit a small fenced-in area on the edge of the community that has a monument with the names of 161 children who died at the Sacred Heart Mission school.
In the 1920s, the mission decided to dig up all the priests, nuns and brothers who were buried there and move them to a new gravesite. Then they plowed the graveyard over, over all the bodies that were buried there, over my relatives and the children who were buried there. If our elders had not carried the information forward and convinced our leadership in the 1990s to do some research and find this grave, this would have been all forgotten.
The devastation of these so-called schools has lived through generations. Unfortunately, this devastation has survived as well. In the Northwest Territories, we top many of Canada's lists: addiction rates, suicide rates, crime rates and housing needs. My efforts here in this House have often targeted getting more housing, increasing indigenous policing and accessing more mental health funding.
I have also been advocating for more attention and resources to conclude land claims and self-government. As well as decreasing this constant and large socioeconomic gap between indigenous people and other Canadians, which needs to be a priority, there also needs to be certainty over land rights and empowerment of indigenous people through self-government.
I can see how the government has supported Canada's effort and attention, and the billions of dollars in additional funding to indigenous governments, indigenous organizations and programs that have been created over the five years. Should there be more? I think so. Should it be faster? I think so.
While we are all mourning the children from Kamloops, let us not make it an empty exercise. Let us move faster in fulfilling the important work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Let us focus on reducing and eliminating systemic racism that exists, and that we see in policing and health care, for example.
To the members of the loyal opposition, while posting thoughts on the recent tragedy before us along with pictures of teddy bears, let us not continue to vote against legislation like UNDRIP. Let us work together to support indigenous people in Canada. Let us not continue to make comments on residential schools that are both inaccurate and insensitive.
Let us work together and not obstruct our attempts to heal and to help and to empower indigenous people, who are still surviving this generational harm that goes by the name of residential schools. Please, let us all focus on helping our constituents.
View Randall Garrison Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. NDP whip for reminding me that I have to ask for consent to share my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
Does the member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.
View Élisabeth Brière Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Élisabeth Brière Profile
2021-05-31 13:11 [p.7609]
Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
This afternoon, I am very pleased to be able to speak to the bill that is before us today. It is a very relevant and important bill, which, without exaggeration, has the potential to save lives.
I feel very strongly about Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy. My son Nicolas is a PhD student in chemistry. He likes to play sports, sail and do all sorts of other great things. These are the traits that characterize him and set him apart from others. My son is also gay. I can say that I am proud to live in a society and a country that does not characterize people based on their sex, gender or sexual orientation. This bill deals with a subject that is very personal to me and so my emotions may get the better of me during my speech.
Nevertheless, in the next few minutes, I will attempt to illustrate why Bill C-6 is an excellent bill, especially why it is truly essential, and why it is, in my humble opinion, high time we legislate on this issue.
For a long time, homosexuality was considered immoral, deviant and even criminal. Some still hold those views today, and I will refrain from citing some truly appalling speeches heard recently in the House on this subject. Some people think that homosexuality is not genetic. They believe it is caused by a trauma, the influence of an evil spirit, or a disorder linked to gender identity. Others believe that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore it can be changed, or that it is a mental disorder. There are those who would argue that it is a sin that must be resisted or a demon that needs to be exorcised.
Historically, many methods have been employed to punish or cure homosexuality: riding a bike to the point of exhaustion, applying electrodes, administering chemical substances, or psychoanalytic therapy.
Conversion therapy started to emerge in the 1990s. Let us be clear about what conversion therapy is. Conversion therapy aims to change an individual's sexual orientation to heterosexual, specifically in order to reduce or repress non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviours, or to change an individual's gender identity to match the sex he or she was assigned to at birth.
Sexual reorientation practices aim to silence the individual's diversity in favour of a specific sexual orientation, namely heterosexuality. Framing sexual orientation as a choice within a binary system is, in the end, just another argument used to legitimize the homophobic nature of sexual reorientation practices.
How can conversion therapy still exist in 2021, after great advances like legalizing gay marriage and making it possible for same-sex couples to adopt? That is why we need to legislate on this issue.
What does this bill really do? Our colleagues across the aisle have raised a number of concerns about the bill, which is why it is important to set the record straight. If passed, the legislation would prohibit conversion therapy for minors and make it illegal to transport a minor outside of Canada for such therapy. It would also make it illegal to subject adults to conversion therapy against their will.
Lastly, the bill makes it illegal to profit from or advertize conversion therapy.
I want to send a clear message to my colleagues. We must vote with full knowledge of the facts. Private conversations between a parent and child, or between two people, are not and will not be prohibited. Supporting someone who is genuinely questioning their sexual orientation is legitimate. However, encouraging these individuals to repress their same-sex attraction is not the right solution. Instead, they should be supported in fighting the homophobia they may have internalized. That is why we introduced Bill C-6.
Conversion therapy is based on the false premise that an individual's sexual orientation and gender identity and expression can and must change to conform to an extremely narrow and outdated view of what is “natural” or “normal”.
Despite the decriminalization and depathologization of homosexuality, there are still quite a few organizations that provide treatments to “heal” homosexuality. Those who carry out rites, prayers or exorcisms generally do not do so openly. They say they deliver or liberate people from the demon of homosexuality.
The evidence collected has exposed situations where people are forcibly confined, assaulted and experience outright physical and emotional abuse. Furthermore, it has been shown that parents fail to ensure the safety and development of their children by encouraging them to participate in practices of sexual reorientation because they knew that third parties could emotionally and physically mistreat them.
Several experts, including psychiatrist Richard Montoro, have stated that providing conversion therapy is tantamount to homophobia and is a serious threat to health and fundamental rights. This type of therapy has cognitive and social consequences and can lead to anxiety, depression and even suicidal ideation.
The Pan American Health Organization has said that there is no medical justification for conversion therapy. When I met with them, representatives from organizations in my community, such as GRIS Estrie and Fière la fête, all said that this is an unjustifiable practice that must be denounced and subject to sanctions.
It is absolutely essential that we help people accept their sexual orientation, rather than encouraging them to fight their homosexuality, often in a homophobic and heterosexist social environment.
We cannot change the past, but I hope that this discussion will help advance gender and sexual diversity rights, in the hopes of building a fairer society. It is a positive for someone who is homosexual to say that they are lucky because they are accepted by their family, friends and community, but we can do so much better. The fact that someone even has to say these things is proof of widespread prejudice.
When I read the letter my son wrote to tell us he was gay, I cried. I cried because of the world and its prejudice. I cried because this world, which claims to be egalitarian, categorizes people and still places white heterosexual men on a pedestal.
Consider all of the discrimination packed into those three little words: white heterosexual men. We have seen too many examples of this in the news in recent months. We are living in a society where people who are different are at best marginalized and, at worst, abused and killed. That is why minorities always have to fight to maintain and build on their gains. Despite our efforts to change things, are we still be intolerant of difference?
Let us hope that this vote will prove the opposite. Conversion therapy is a destructive, cruel and deadly practice. It has no place in Canada or anywhere else.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That a take-note debate on the tragic discovery of the remains of 215 children at a former residential school in British Columbia be held, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, June 1, 2021, and that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
Hearing none, I declare the motion carried.
View Arif Virani Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Arif Virani Profile
2021-05-31 15:45 [p.7638]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.
Pride Month starts tomorrow in my home province of Ontario, and I can think of no more opportune time to be working on the passage of Bill C-6 in the House of Commons. During Pride, LGBTQ2 Canadians celebrate who they are and their freedom to identify how they wish and love whomever they want, but there remain those who would deny the LGBTQ2 community's basic rights: those who believe that sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression can and should be changed to fit the narrow idea of what is “normal” or “natural” through the practice of conversion therapy. Bill C-6 would put an end to this.
By criminalizing the practice of conversion therapy, our government is making a statement. We are stating clearly that conversion therapy is degrading, abusive and discriminatory, and the lifelong trauma it causes must come to an end. I have heard this call from my constituents in Parkdale—High Park and from those who believe in equality and in ending stigma right around the country. On the eve of Pride 2021, I hope that all colleagues in the House can agree that a practice based on age-old myths and prejudicial stereotypes about the LGTBQ2 community has no place in Canada.
Now let me turn to the bill itself. It proposes reforms that would comprehensively protect children from the known harms of conversion therapy, and protect Canadians from commercialization of the practice and from being forced to undergo it.
These reforms were inspired by a growing movement against conversion therapy led by survivors and supported by community allies, researchers and experts, many of whom shared their knowledge and experiences with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we studied the bill.
This broad body of work inspired important amendments at committee and highlighted the evidence-based findings, namely that conversion therapy is harmful to people subjected to it. Bill C-6 seeks to stop this affront to human dignity and is an integral part of our ongoing efforts to protect LGBTQ2 individuals.
As many have rightly pointed out, the origins of conversion therapy betray its discriminatory and harmful ends. I want to highlight the testimony of Jack Saddleback. When I was at the justice committee, he poignantly reminded us in his testimony of the history of conversion therapy in Canada. It is inextricably linked to the erosion of indigenous culture and understanding of gender and sexual diversity, and to the suffering of two-spirit youths in residential schools, which is something we have all been thinking about a great deal over the past several days. As we reflect on the harm this bill is intended to prevent, we cannot forget the personal intergenerational trauma endured by two-spirit individuals and the communities for whom “conversion” has often been synonymous with assimilation.
By the 1980s and 1990s, the practice of conversion therapy had become prominent in this country. Even as we adopted the charter in 1982 and strengthened our collective commitment to protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians, the inherent dignity and quality of LGBTQ2 youths' and adults' lives continued to be threatened by interventions that vilified and pathologized their differences. These interventions sought to change who they were.
In his testimony and memoir, The Inheritance of Shame, survivor Peter Gajdics described in no uncertain terms the trauma he experienced as a gay man subjected to conversion therapy between 1989 and 1995. He recalled being virtually imprisoned in a “cult-like house” and subjected to prolonged sessions of primal scream therapy, near-lethal doses of medication and “re-parenting” sessions to heal his “broken masculinity”. When none of these methods worked, he was subjected to aversion therapy to suppress his homosexual desires. In his words, these were weapons selected to wage “a war against his sexuality”.
The names, means and methods of conversion therapy have changed over the years, often in an attempt to escape intensifying scrutiny and scientific condemnation. We heard this raised in the questions posed to the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. However, the practice's flawed and hateful premise has persisted: that LGBTQ2 persons' sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are disordered and must be “fixed” or “rehabilitated” in order for them to live fulfilling and worthy lives. The brief submitted to the justice committee jointly by Dr. Travis Salway and the research team at the Centre for Gender and Sexual Health Equity referenced this point.
In his report entitled, “Conversion Therapy in Canada: A Guide for Legislative Action”, Dr. Wells underscores this point. We also have evidence from the UN Independent Expert 2020 Report, which concluded that conversion practices “inflict severe pain and suffering, resulting in long-lasting psychological and physical damage [and] are inherently degrading and discriminatory. They are rooted in the belief that LGBT persons are somehow inferior and that they must at any cost modify their orientation or identity to remedy that supposed inferiority”.
The UN Independent Expert recognizes that all forms of conversion therapy are dehumanizing and harmful, regardless of whether they purport to make a person heterosexual or cisgender. The report echoes Florence Ashley's warning to Canadian legislators to “reject any attempt to separate trans conversion practices from gay conversion practices”.
As Florence Ashley notes in one of their briefs, “these practices share a history and significant overlap in their contemporary forms. Neither trans nor cisgender LGBQ can be adequately protected without fully protecting the other.”
That is precisely why the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights amended Bill C-6 in order to clarify that the bill has always sought to protect all LGBTQ2 communities.
Survivors and experts told us that the efforts to reduce and suppress the gender expression of transgender, queer and two-spirit people are part of broader interventions designed to “make” them cisgender. The amendments made to the bill's preamble and the definition of conversion therapy to include the mention of “gender expression” reflect the major concerns of all stakeholders.
In response to the experience and warnings of stakeholders with regard to the nature of conversion therapy, the Standing Committee on Justice also amended the offence regarding advertising in order to target the promotion of conversion therapy, namely the promotion of its underlying premise, which is hateful and unscientific.
The proposed offence clearly targets the discriminatory public messaging associated with the advertising of specific conversion therapy services and the promotion of conversion therapy in general.
I am very pleased that the justice committee strengthened this bill, despite many attempts by the official opposition to both delay the bill and stop it. I am particularly grateful to the survivors, advocates and allies who have come forward to inform the process. Through tireless advocacy, they have shed light on a glaring legislative gap in the protection of the inherent dignity and equality of all LGBTQ2 people. It is a gap that has allowed hateful narratives to fester and dehumanizing practices to go unchecked, and a gap that this legislation is carefully designed to fill.
Practices that negate the diversity of the human experience instead of celebrating that experience have absolutely no place in our country. Bill C-6 seeks to end such practices, including by promoting values that are fundamental to what it means to be Canadian: equality, dignity, diversity and respect for difference. Let us join together to further those values in support of Bill C-6.
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
I rise today to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy.
What is conversion therapy? Conversion therapy is a practice, service or treatment that is essentially designed to change a person's sexual orientation. I want to stress here that the goal is to “change”, since we are talking about conversion, which involves change. In my research, I learned that around 47,000 people in Canada have been subjected to this type of “therapy”—which I am putting in air quotes—and it is never successful.
I think I have mentioned that I am a social worker and very proud to be an active member of my professional association. I want to point out that Quebec has already had this debate, and that it has been taking real action against conversion therapy since Bill 70 was unanimously adopted in the Quebec National Assembly on December 9, 2020. Ontario and Manitoba have also passed similar legislation.
Passing Bill 70 was one more milestone confirming Quebec's place as a leader in Canada—and the world—in the fight against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Quebec is a great nation that is respectful and open and celebrates sexual diversity. That is something that makes me very proud.
Driven by this deep conviction, this long tradition of respect and the unanimity on the principle at the National Assembly, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of Bill C-6.
It should be noted that the bill the Liberal government introduced chooses not to fully ban conversion therapy, limiting the prohibition to minors and banning advertising and marketing as well as sending a Canadian minor abroad to get this type of pseudo-therapy. In other words, Bill C-6 seeks to ban imposing conversion therapy on children and adolescents. I am particularly sensitive to the whole issue of adolescence because it is a time when a person gets to know their body, a time of self-discovery.
I must say that I am a bit shocked that this topic is still being debated in the House today, but I am pleased to see that the majority of parliamentarians here support the idea of banning this type of therapy, except for a very active and vocal fringe of the Conservative Party, as we have seen today.
The bill seems balanced. To me it covers the bare minimum. Frankly, I am surprised to have to make this speech, since this seems to fall under the category of respecting people's freedom to love whoever they want. Indeed, this is a question of love that we are talking about today. I want to make a point of saying that my wish is that every child and adolescent in Quebec and Canada can feel respected, welcomed, understood, included and loved regardless of their sexual orientation.
I also want to tell them that I have a great deal of empathy for those who are led to believe that they must choose between their sexual orientation and their spirituality, between their sexual orientation and their life in the community, between their sexual orientation and their future prospects, or in some cases between their sexual orientation and their family ties. These kinds of choices have no place in an open, sensible and sensitive society.
In fact, these dilemmas imposed on some young people are, in my opinion, absurd, since sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. It is therefore absurd to think that sexual orientation will determine anyone's place in society. It is also ridiculous to believe that conversion therapy could do anything other than suppress the full and honest expression of their sexual orientation. Conversion therapy cannot cure a disease that, basically, is not a disease or even a flaw.
Let us be clear: the practice of conversion therapy undermines respect for everyone's gender identity and sexual orientation. Conversion therapies are a direct affront to human dignity.
The Bloc Québécois recognizes that the groups promoting these practices are tiny and in a minority, and wishes to broadly state that respect for beliefs must go hand in hand with respect for differences and, at the same time, the assurance of equality among all persons.
However, conversion therapy advocates usually present these so-called therapies as a caring process and well-thought-out therapeutic sessions developed to help people come to their senses and get back on track. They present their sessions as open discussions about sexual orientation.
How can a discussion be open and balanced when the very purpose of that discussion is conversion? How can we believe that this is an open discussion when people are paying, and sometimes paying quite a lot, for a service that seeks to change a person's sexual preferences? How can we believe that these discussions can be beneficial when minors are being forced to participate in them under duress? In my opinion, the answer is obvious.
There is a very significant difference between caring and conversion therapy. Caring comes through acceptance, and when there is acceptance then people can talk about the fact that it is normal for a person to question their sexual orientation, try different things and learn about their sexuality and about the fact that a person's sexual orientation can change over the course of their lifetime.
If we are truly accepting and open-minded, we can recognize that it is completely normal to be gay or to identify somewhere on the broad spectrum of sexual orientation. If we are completely open-minded and accepting, we understand that a person can, at different times in their life, experience something other than heterosexuality, and that is normal. If we are completely open-minded, we understand that being gay, lesbian, bisexual or any sexual orientation is equivalent to being heterosexual. In other words, sexual orientation should not have an impact on the life or the value that a person has.
Not being able to tolerate the idea that an individual can love the person they choose to love is not being open-minded. Those who seek to guide an individual to what is considered tolerable, to suppress sincere feelings and to violate a person's right to live their sexual orientation with dignity, are forced to use arguments based on fear. This places people in a position of making judgments.
I want members to clearly hear me. The Bloc Québécois will definitely be voting unanimously for Bill C-6. All our members, and I did say all, will vote in favour of this bill, as we did at second reading.
I call on all political parties to do the same and to fully, unequivocally and unanimously support Bill C-6 to send a clear message that, in Quebec and in Canada, we respect the dignity of all people who, ultimately, are just living with love.
View Leona Alleslev Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
My questions are for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
President Biden, in his made-in-America executive order on January 25, made a clear statement about the priority and direction that the U.S. would take in terms of ensuring the future is made in America and by all of America's workers.
Has the minister gained commitment from the United States that Canadian companies will be able to bid directly on all aspects of the U.S. $2 trillion federal infrastructure plan?
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
For this debate, I am adding my thoughts to those of my colleagues from Lakeland and Provencher, who have already pointed out what is wrong with Bill C-21's wrong-headed idea of firearms policy.
The member for Lakeland, who serves as the shadow minister of public safety, has done an incredible job in exposing many of the fallacies and misconceptions in how the Liberal government deals with firearms. After doing so in this House, she received a shockingly bad and partisan response from the Minister of Public Safety. That says it all about how Liberals are handling this important issue.
Simply put, the Liberal government proposes to take firearms from co-operative, law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop the flow of illegal guns to dangerous criminals and gangs, which is where the crisis is coming from in the first place. Of course, violent crime with illegal firearms is happening in Canada and has especially been a growing concern for certain cities.
There is a lot more to say about the alarming rise of rural crime as well, which has to do with a completely different set of circumstances for citizens and law enforcement, but today I will focus on a basic principle the Liberal government is totally missing.
Instead of targeting law-abiding Canadians and firearm retailers, the government should be investing in police anti-gang and gun units, and in the CBSA, to provide law enforcement with all the resources it needs to stop illegal smuggling operations and get dangerous criminals and gangs off our streets. This is a common sense approach that would proactively save lives and prevent crime.
In his speech, the member for Kingston and the Islands indicated that rather than deal with high rates of crime, we should just ban guns instead and all crime would magically stop. This is the dangerous mentality the government has when dealing with crime. Rather than deal with the actual problem, it chooses to make a splashy announcement that sounds like it is doing something, but in reality, it continually harasses law-abiding gun owners, who are the most highly vetted citizens in Canada.
This is exactly the problem with what the Liberals have presented in Bill C-21. They are not directing the necessary effort to where expert advice and data indicate it should be going. If we are not keeping illegal guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, then nothing will change.
If there is any real hope of better protecting the public from these threats, we must focus on stronger enforcement and on deterrence of criminal activity, gangs and illegal gun trafficking. That is what it will take for any new firearms policy to be effective. This is what the experts and professionals are telling us. It is what police departments across Canada are saying when discussing this legislation. I will quote a few prominent members of those respective forces.
Toronto Police Association president, Mike McCormack, said, “There's no way in my world or any world I know that this would have an impact on somebody who's going to go out and buy an illegal gun and use it to kill another person or shoot another person.”
Retired Toronto staff inspector Mike Earl noted, “A handgun ban is ridiculous and doesn’t address the actual problem of criminals shooting up the city. If those people aren't obeying the laws that are already in place, why would they obey a ban?”
Winnipeg police inspector Max Waddell said that, while a ban on all guns might seem like a common sense approach, banning guns wouldn't necessarily stop gun violence. He explains:
I’ll draw a parallel. Illicit drugs are also banned. Yet we see dramatic increases and challenges around methamphetamine...because it’s that supply and demand force that causes individuals to obtain these firearms whether it’s to protect their drug trade, prevent harm, to use it for extortion. Whatever the criminal element is needing these guns for.
There are many more quotes from professionals, people the government clearly failed to consult while drafting this legislation, or else it would have reconsidered a full-scale ban on handguns. If we think about it for a moment, it is a bizarre move for how it wants to set up such a ban and really shows the major flaw with its entire program.
The government would be creating conditions on federal firearms licences to restrict handgun storage of transport within municipalities that have passed such bylaws. These bylaws would effectively be conditions on licences, which means it would only target lawful Canadians who already have the paperwork and are complying with the rules. This provision would only add more red tape and regulations for law-abiding Canadians, and these would be subject to change from community to community depending on whether a particular municipality has passed a bylaw. This is nothing but redundancy and ineffectiveness, and there are mayors who have already spoken out against this bizarre legislation.
Don Iveson, the mayor of Edmonton said, “it’s not the direction we would go in...to pursue a city-specific ban when the issue of the flow of these weapons and their ties to, particularly, drugs and organized crime is much more than a municipality-by-municipality issue”.
He makes a good point. I am all for the division of powers and decentralized government, but when it comes to tackling gun crime and illegal guns, there needs to be a consistent and national approach.
The mayor of Halifax, Mike Savage, points out what we think would be obvious, but clearly it is not. He questioned whether a handgun ban would successfully counter gun violence in a city because, as he says, “A lot of them are not registered weapons”. These are the same handguns used by criminals. Further to his point, these are firearms and they are not obtained legally.
We need to focus on a cost-effective gun control program that is designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while at the same time respecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly. The reality is that at least 80% of guns used in Canadian gun crimes are illegally smuggled in from the United States, meaning that municipal regulations on law-abiding firearms owners will not change much.
Why is the government not focusing on the main supply for gun crime in this country? If it would have consulted those who are dealing with gun crime on the front lines, this bill would be significantly different. Some of the measures that we all support in this House are going to be mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms, although the government is moving to remove some of those.
We already have strict processes for people who go in to buy firearms. I referenced earlier in my speech that they are among the most highly vetted citizens in Canada because of the process it takes to acquire the certification to be able to acquire and possess a firearm. One of the most important elements this bill fails to address is putting more law enforcement officers on our streets to deal with the illegal guns and the gangs that plague our cities.
A strange part of the legislation has caught many of my constituents off guard with the prohibition of the importation, exportation and sale of all non-regulated air guns that look like modern firearms. In case members in other parties, especially the governing Liberal Party, were not aware, airsoft guns are not real firearms. We do not have to be afraid of them. They are intentionally designed for games or simply for practice in a controlled environment.
Under Bill C-21, virtually all airsoft guns in Canada will be banned based on their muzzle velocity, as well as their similar look to real firearms. Basically, the government want to ban a hobby enjoyed by thousands of Canadians, including many of their own constituents. In all seriousness, this is more than the Liberals being killjoys. This will affect the real jobs and livelihoods of our fellow Canadians.
According to Airsoft in Canada, the Canadian airsoft market is worth $100 million, and more than 260 Canadian businesses are linked to the paintball or airsoft community. Distributors and retailers are left unsure as to what to do with both their current stock and their stock on order because all of it would be rendered worthless immediately if the government goes through with its ridiculous ban.
There is also a lack of clarity on how this would be enforced. Will they be confiscated, or is the government planning a costly buyback plan for these airsoft guns as well? With this example, it cannot get any clearer that Bill C-21 is not serious about tackling gun crime at all. Sadly, this is the superficial response they are offering to Canadians. They are full of distractions and empty rhetoric.
Canadian lives are at stake here. The government had an opportunity to actually listen to the experts, who have all come to agree that any legislation tackling gun crime must be directed at criminals and gangs, but they have chosen to ignore data-driven policies so they can try to score cheap political points. This is something my Conservative colleagues and I cannot play along with. We will continue to demand real action on gun crime so all Canadians can live in peace and security. This can and should be done while fully respecting the rights and freedoms under the law.
There is one other point I want to address. I addressed this when I spoke to the budget earlier this week. One of the biggest discrepancies we face here in Canada continues to be the difference between urban and rural Canadians. This gun ban particularly hits at the lives of rural Canadians because a lot of the firearms that were banned by the order in council are tools that are used by ranchers and farmers. They are actually necessary for their day-to-day operations in that they help to deal with pests. They help them to protect their herds and their livestock.
There is actually a real need for some of the firearms that were banned by the order in council. To arbitrarily use the bore diameter and the muzzle velocity chosen by the government really does not make any sense because it directly impacts the people who are using them for common sense purposes and reasons.
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
View Raquel Dancho Profile
2021-05-26 21:04 [p.7429]
Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
Nearly 700,000 students will receive the Canada student loan this year, and the program administers about $24 billion of student loans. This year, the program is in fact projected to grow about 32%. To administer this massive program, the Liberal government signed an eight-year contract with a private software company called Finastra, which gets money for each loan user.
Could the minister provide the total fee paid by her government to Finastra for operating the student loan program last year and the projected fee for this year?
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2021-05-26 21:35 [p.7434]
Madam Chair, I will share my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, and I will use my portion of the time to ask a series of questions.
Some new small businesses that were at the pre-revenue stage prior to the pandemic have been systematically excluded from the government's programs. This has been widely acknowledged, including by officials.
Do these estimates fix that problem, which has been faced by new businesses that were established right at the beginning of the pandemic?
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
CPC (ON)
View Marilyn Gladu Profile
2021-05-26 22:07 [p.7439]
Madam Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton West, and I will be spending my time questioning the minister.
The minister has described budget 2021 as a growth budget, and I want to begin with the oil and gas sector, which is quite important for my riding. This is a sector across the country that has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of foreign investment. What is the funding end for measures of growth for this sector in these estimates?
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Centre and asking questions to the minister.
What will happen first, putting a rover on the moon or first nations getting clean drinking water?
Results: 76 - 90 of 958 | Page: 6 of 64

|<
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data