Debates of April 1st, 2015

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will now have a 30-minute question period. I would ask members to keep their questions to around one minute and government responses to a similar length of time.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 93rd time in this Parliament that the government moved a time allocation motion to impose closure.

The government tosses it around like it is candy, but there are serious ramifications.

First, on this bill, Bill C-42, only two members of the opposition have even been able to speak to it, because the government basically sat on it for four months, and now the government is imposing time allocation, closure, just like that.

The other problem, as members know, is that the government has the worst track record of any Canadian government in history in terms of having rejected pieces of legislation. It brings legislation in, it does not subject it to proper debate, it does not allow committees to actually scrutinize the legislation, and it then goes to the courts. In the last year, half a dozen pieces of legislation have been thrown out by the courts, because the legislation was so badly written that the courts could simply not stand for it.

The question is very simple. After two members of the opposition have spoken to this bill, the government is invoking closure. Why is the government so intolerant of debate, and why has it brought forward legislation that is rejected so consistently by the courts?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from British Columbia for his question.

I will go straight to the crux of the matter. During the debate we just had, my colleague spoke about the importance of time management for parliamentary work. I would humbly reply to my colleague that we already know the position of the main political parties on the common sense firearms licensing act.

Therefore, we must now move to the next step, the in-depth study of the bill by a committee of parliamentarians. They will have the opportunity to call all the witnesses they want and proceed with the vote at first reading in order to thoroughly study this bill, while taking into account the reality that there are only a few weeks left in the session.

Thus, we must strike a balance between the opportunity for all parties to have their say and the opportunity to study the bill more thoroughly in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians should be concerned about the majority Conservative government's attitude in terms of process and the way the government has made the determination to process legislation through the House of Commons. Time allocation is something that should be used periodically if, in fact, there is a need and a justification for it. We have seen the government abuse time allocation, for whatever reason. The bottom line is that the government has failed to properly manage the legislative agenda of the House of Commons and as a direct result has become completely dependent on time allocation. That is not healthy for a democracy in Canada.

My question to the government House leader is this: How does he justify any sense of democracy and respect for the House when he continues to bring in time allocation only to get the government agenda across? At the end of the day, it is denying Canadians the ability to have their voices heard through their members of Parliament, who are duly elected and have been charged with the responsibility of holding government accountable for the legislation it introduces in the chamber.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the parliamentary process.

We already know the position of the parties. This bill is about a safe and sensible firearms policy. That is what this bill is all about. It includes measures that will increase the safety of our country, such as mandatory training for anyone who wants to acquire or possess a firearm. That is the kind of measure that is in the bill.

It is important that we have a thorough review of the bill, clause by clause, and that we listen to witnesses. In our parliamentary process, that is not done in this House. We need to send this bill to committee, where all parties will be represented, where there can be discussions, where they can look at the bill in depth, and frankly speaking, where there is sometimes a less partisan environment than there is here in this House of Commons. These are good reasons.

While we already know that the Liberals and NDP members oppose common-sense firearms licensing, we should move this bill into committee. I am ready to respond to any questions.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard this speech before about going to committee and hearing from everyone who wants to appear. That was on Bill C-51. We saw what happened with that.

There is a peculiar thing about this bill. The government rushed in here with this bill, and then we had a sudden delay. Suddenly it was not on the order paper. I wondered if perhaps the minister was actually listening to some of the critics of this bill out there. Then a peculiar thing happened, and I want to ask the minister a very specific question about it. The National Firearms Association was supposed to appear before the public safety committee on Bill C-51. It was going to appear to speak against that bill. Suddenly, at the very last hour, it withdrew as a witness.

Is placing this bill back on the order paper and using time allocation part of a deal the minister cut with the National Firearms Association so that it would not testify against Bill C-51, and the minister agreed, therefore, to bring this forward expeditiously, use time allocation, and pass it through the House? If so, it is not a deal I would want to stand up and talk about.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like it is April Fool's Day. I can tell by the member's question.

Some people take the issue of counterterrorism and anti-terrorism measures very seriously. That is why the public safety and national security committee heard more than 40 witnesses, most of whom were in support of this important legislation.

Let me get back to the core of the reason we are now debating this, which is the importance of increasing safety and security while streamlining the process for law-abiding gun owners. There are many. There are many in Bellechasse, in my riding, which means “nice hunting”.

There are also hunters and fishermen in Yorkton—Melville and in Prince George—Peace River, where those members have dedicated a lot of their work and their careers to making sure that those who want to possess a firearm do it in a safe manner. They are not ostracized because they enjoy outdoor activities. They enjoy one of the founding activities of this country. It is about—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest that this bill started out as the common sense firearms act, and now the name has been changed. I am just curious as to whether common sense has been thrown out the window with it.

I have another question for the minister. With a world view that sees terrorists around every corner, how are Canadians made more safe by making automatic and semi-automatic weapons easier to get? How are Canadians made safe by making even hunting rifles, as well as other firearms, easier to transport around this country? How does the minister respond to the fact that the rifle used in the attack on Parliament Hill was at one point a legally owned gun that got into the hands of a terrorist?

Why would the minister take steps to make guns easier to get, if that is the public safety threat he is trying to address in front of the House?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to read the bill. He will see that there are measures in it to increase safety in the use of firearms.

Actually, there are measures in the bill that were promoted by the former leader of the NDP, Jack Layton, such as the merge of the possession-only licence and the possession-and-acquisition licence. Streamlining a regime of two licences into one licence is common sense.

We would require mandatory firearms safety courses for first-time gun owners. They would have to take the course. We would strengthen firearms prohibition for those who are convicted of domestic violence offences. This is an important part of that bill.

There are also measures in the bill to ensure that law-abiding citizens would not be treated like criminals because they had forgotten to fill out a form within a very short time. These are common-sense measures.

Let us send this bill to committee so that members can review it and get a better understanding. I invite the member to read the bill.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found some of the minister's comments to be shocking.

If I understand correctly, this is the 93rd time allocation motion. By the way, it is rather ironic that we end up talking about a time allocation motion after an hon. member was trying to have the floor. I see that democracy is alive and well in Canada.

According to the minister, the reason for this 93rd time allocation motion is that he knows where the parties stand on this issue. The idea of having 308 members in the House, who represent places all across Canada and want to express an opinion on a bill, is immaterial to the minister. The important thing is to know a party's position. The rest does not help him in the least. In any event, he is not concerned about what people think.

This is precisely what I want to ask the minister. I find this somewhat troubling. The bill that only two opposition members were given the time to debate was supposed to be introduced in the House on October 23. If it is such a good safety bill, then why did the government withdraw it the day after the events that took place on Parliament Hill?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows very well that parliamentarians have a number of opportunities to have their say: at first reading, in committee, at second reading or at third reading. If the committee wishes, it will send the bill back here to the House so that we can continue to debate it. However, it will have already been subject to a detailed study, which has not yet happened.

I simply want to remind my colleague that our public safety and gun control policies work. Since 2008, the number of firearm homicides has gone down by 30%. As of right now, we have reached the lowest rate in more than 50 years.

We want to keep going in this direction and to ensure that our system is even safer. That is why we introduced this bill and why I look forward to meeting with members in committee to explain the merits of this bill.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise and support the minister on Bill C-42.

This bill has been around for almost six months. I have been listening very carefully to the debate here, there, and everywhere, and no new issues have come up. The only thing that I hear them complaining about is that there is another time allocation motion. If a bill has been around and has not been criticized in terms of its substance, I see no problem with it.

I would like to thank the minister for this bill. However, I would like to point out some of the incorrect things that have been said today.

That this bill would make guns easier to get is totally false. That it somehow would make it easier for guns to be transported in Canada is a comment that shows the lack of knowledge of the opposition members in regard to this bill, because it would not have any effect on the transport of guns. There was a statement that most guns are stolen from law-abiding people; how false that statement is.

We have all of these statements being made that are completely false. I wonder if the minister has any comment in regard to that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yorkton—Melville, who has a deep understanding of the way Canadians abide by the law.

This is what we are talking about. We are talking about a bill that intends to streamline the process for law-abiding citizens while improving the safety of Canadians with mechanisms that are not in place at this time. I am a little bit disappointed to see that the opposition member would oppose removal of the licence of an individual who has been convicted of domestic violence.

This is in the bill. There are measures that will increase the safety of our citizens, but the bill would also cut red tape for a large part of the population that for too long has been taken hostage through mechanisms that are actually not safe.

I would like further to comment on some recent decisions that were made in Quebec and the reaction of some organizations.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the use of time allocation particularly prejudices the rights of members of Parliament in parties of fewer than 12 members or those who sit as independents, an increasingly growing number along this row.

I find it particularly difficult, because I just endured, as have other members here, the same minister's rush-through of Bill C-51. When the minister testified at committee, he went out of his way to attack me personally. The chair did not let me respond. I was promised a personal meeting with the minister to discuss Bill C-51. That never occurred.

I am tired of being run over as if there is a tank on the other side that runs over independents and members of small parties on this side. The Green Party has a right to participate in these debates, and every time there is time allocation, our rights are denied.

I ask that the minister please allow us to debate the bill properly.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any questions, but I would certainly point out to the member that she can take full advantage of our parliamentary process and that I am always more than happy to be given an opportunity to talk about the measures we are putting forward for countering terrorism.

Once again I am disappointed to see that the Green Party will not support measures that are reasonable and balanced to protect Canadians. Frankly, I think we can do both. We can protect Canadians and we can also protect their privacy. We can work for the economy and we can also work for sustainable development. I am very proud of having been involved in the environment for 20 years.

However, let me get back to what I wanted to say.

I want to talk about two organizations in Quebec that support effective policies for firearms registration. One of those organizations is the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs. The other, Québec Outfitters, also spoke out today in favour of those policies. They are calling on us to implement effective measures and to avoid repeating past mistakes, such as the ineffective long gun registry, which cost taxpayers millions of dollars. They are calling on us to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

That is what this bill does. We are fixing these mistakes, we are cutting red tape and we are improving the safety and effectiveness of our country's firearms registry system.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the justifications the minister has offered is that the time is here to go to committee, even though there has been almost no debate on the bill.

In a functioning Parliament, in a Parliament where democracy is taken seriously, the idea of going to committee for an independent and truly fair review of a bill might be something we would want to entertain, were that argument made sincerely and in good faith. However, we know that is not true.

We had the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages up in the House in question period saying to the Speaker that committees are masters of their own house. Everybody in this House knows that is simply not true. Parliamentary secretaries sit on committees as direct conduits from ministers and the PMO. We also have the record of the government not accepting, as a matter of perverse principle, amendments coming from the opposition. There were over 100 amendments from four parties or from independents in the Bill C-51 process, but not one was accepted.

Going to committee as an excuse to cut off debate in the House is totally bogus, and I am wondering if the minister, somehow or other, thinks committees are working independently in this House.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they are, absolutely. The last time I entertained a discussion with the member for Toronto—Danforth was actually at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where we were discussing the important legislation this government is putting forward on counterterrorism. We had more than 40 witnesses. There were witnesses from the Conservative Party and also from the opposition Liberals and the NDP. I want to thank the member, who has spent hours on the bill. Last night at 10 o'clock, the committee was still reviewing the bill after hearing many witnesses, who brought many interesting comments. For me, that is clear proof of a committee that has decided to take its job seriously and that has studied the bill for many extended hours. Yes, it is a good example, and now we have a result. The bill has been reviewed by a committee and it is now ready to come back here.

To get back to the common sense firearms licencing act, I expect and I hope that the member will support the bill to be sent at second reading to committee.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members of what we are here to debate. What we are debating is a time allocation motion. The reason many people are trying to make points about the legislation itself during this debate is that after two speakers, the government has once again moved time allocation to shut down debate.

I was not planning to speak right now, but it is very difficult to sit here and listen to ministers saying that we need to send the bill to committee where we can have an in-depth study and do the hard work and have amendments. That has not been my experience. I did not find that was the case when I was on the immigration committee and wrong-headed policies were changed.

Bill C-51 is a critical bill, yet I did not get an opportunity to speak to it. Today I am ready to speak to this bill, but once again the other side decides to shut down debate.

What are the Conservatives so scared of?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for speaking, and the member would certainly agree with me that if all 307 members spoke to every bill at every step in the passage of a bill, we might not accomplish the objectives that the people who put us here expect. They expect us to deliver results, and that is why we are working with parties and sharing ideas.

The measures in the bill are shared by the members of this government. Common sense firearms licensing is a measure that would streamline the process for law-abiding citizens and increase security through mandatory training and through removal of the licence from people recognized as being involved in domestic violence.

Yes, this is democracy at work, and we are being given the opportunity to vote on the bill and send it to committee for a thorough review. I expect members will do their jobs seriously and review the bill on its merits and not on urban legend—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my vision of democracy is one in which people of different viewpoints are able to come together to have an open and honest debate, exchange ideas, and hopefully find some middle ground. Maybe they find a little bit of compromise through listening to each other and make the very best decisions for the people they represent. Surely that is the aspiration we have when we come to the House.

We are dealing with a bill that is extremely important. It is about firearms safety. I come from the largest city in the country, where young people are dying of gunshot wounds and families are being torn apart because of gun violence. It is a serious issue. I know that there are strong views on gun safety and that views differ all across the country. I think the best way to find good legislation is by listening to people on all sides of the issue and trying to find common ground and the best result.

My question for the minister is this: what is the panic on the bill? Why are members not being allowed to debate it? Why is there this offence to fundamental democracy? Why is debate being shut down in this place for the 93rd time? What are they afraid of? Why do they not let us debate the bill?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have been hearing about a regime that was put in place many decades ago and needs improvement. I put to the House that this bill is bringing common sense into a regime that has included a lot of paperwork for law-abiding citizens and that has been adding weaknesses in terms of the safety of communities and the urban communities the member was referring to.

Once again, I put it to the House that by adding mandatory training for anyone who is willing to possess or acquire a firearm in Canada, we are strengthening our Canadian way of dealing with firearms. I would also say that if someone has been convicted of domestic violence, the individual should not have the capacity to possess a firearm. This measure in the bill, along with others, are to streamline the process and treat those who abide by the law with respect.

Indeed, we have nothing to hide. We are proud the bill is up for debate. Let us get it through committee so we can review this bill with the witnesses–—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank hon. members for their participation in limiting their interventions this afternoon. We have time for about two more interventions and that will wrap up the 30 minutes.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we heard from the minister was very disingenuous when he talked about what if all 307 of us spoke. What we are talking about is the government limiting the debate not to 300, but only two members having spoken. He talked again about committees being masters of their own house. We know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness speaks for the minister in the House. That is her job. Unfortunately, when she comes to committee, she does the same thing and speaks for the minister.

The initial proposal from the parliamentary secretary was that we only have three meetings and only 18 witnesses. It was only because the NDP conducted a filibuster under the rules did we force the government to allow more witnesses. We only heard 48 of the more than 100 people who wanted to appear.

I want to go back to my question. This bill had been taken off the order paper, suddenly it appeared back on the order paper, and now suddenly we have time allocation. The minister evaded my question. Is this part of a deal he struck with the National Firearms Association to get it to drop out of presenting witnesses on Bill C-51 and to not criticize Bill C-51, which he knows very well it was going to do.