Debates of March 27th, 2018

Bill C-71—Time Allocation Motion

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, just to be absolutely clear, I would like the hon. gentleman to ask that question once more, so I get the detail of what he is asking.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. That is not how it works. The minister can answer the question.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, to be very clear to the hon. gentleman, the answer is no. When a licence verification is under way the purpose of the verification is to ensure the licence is valid. There is no reference to any particular firearm.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I quote:

Clear ministerial accountability to Parliament is fundamental to responsible government, and requires that Ministers provide Parliament with the information it needs to fulfill its roles of legislating, approving the appropriation of funds and holding the government to account. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to demonstrate respect and support for the parliamentary process.

That was from the letter in “Open and Accountable Government” from the PM to his ministers.

What we have now is a bill that was tabled last week. We have had less than one hour of debate. Even the Conservatives when they were in a majority government never did time allocation with less than one day of debate.

We have not even had the chance to participate in the debate on an important piece of legislation. The government is showing complete disrespect for the House. I wonder how the minister can justify calling time allocation on such an important bill, with what the Prime Minister said in the mandate letters to his ministers. This is the 31st time they have done that in the House.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, the facts of the matter are clear with respect to Bill C-71. We had it on the Order Paper for debate on Friday. That was totally pre-empted by the official opposition. We put it on the Order Paper again yesterday. We began the debate and the opposition moved to adjourn the debate.

Clearly, there was not a serious intent on the part of the official opposition to have a serious discussion at second reading on Bill C-71. We are prepared to provide one full further day to go through that process, but the process has been truncated and pre-empted thus far by the official opposition.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, in concert with the tabling of Bill C-71, the Ontario Provincial Police, together with regional police forces, issued an amnesty, suggesting that firearms owners in Ontario hand in their firearms. Just as it was with the carbon tax, where the federal government imposed the tax and expected the provinces to do the dirty work and collect the taxes, is it not true the Liberals are doing the same thing with this gun registry act, that they are going to implement it but have the provinces enforce it and do what they ultimately want to do, which is to see no firearms in the hands of civilians?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, no.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time when this argument keeps coming up. It is one thing to talk about the procedural shenanigans that are happening, but the issue here is that regardless of who proposed to adjourn the debate, the Liberals voted in favour of adjourning debate on the bill yesterday. Less than 24 hours ago, they were voting in favour of adjourning the debate, so I am having a hard time. Then they are heckling, but no, they do not heckle. They do not adjourn debate. They do not use time allocation. However, they do all these things anyway. That is the reality.

As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé pointed out, we have had less than an hour. We have not even gotten to an NDP speaker yet. I spent the whole day waiting to speak to this bill yesterday. I did not get the opportunity. The bill did not come back. It is not here today. However, I am getting to speak on time allocation before I even get to speak to the bill as my party's critic. Could the minister tell me how that makes sense?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I hear the hon. gentleman's concern and I suggest he direct his angst to the official opposition. They moved the motion.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say how disappointed I am. The minister has been a parliamentarian for many years. This is not a minority Parliament where the government sometimes has to bend to the will of other parties. Every choice the government has made, it has made to diminish the voices of other parliamentarians and the people they represent. I will bet there are people in the gentleman's riding who take offence that we have to get answers to technical questions, like the ones other members have asked, about the registrar, about how the process is to go forward. The fact that we are asking technical questions proves that the government is not allowing a proper debate to go forward.

Will the minister please explain to the House what is so important and must be rushed that he cannot even allow members of Parliament to educate the committee that will be studying this bill as to what the concerns will be, or are the members on that committee so special and know everything about this bill that other members of Parliament can add nothing to it?

I would like to hear from the minister why he thinks his government can act in such a bulldozer fashion and not let voices such as those in my riding be heard properly.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, on the issue of technical questions, indeed, there are many technical questions with respect to the administration of any particular piece of legislation. The place where one goes into the technical details is in the work of the standing committee. That is where one asks the precise, mechanical, administrative, technical questions and gets all of the detailed information.

In terms of the broad debate on second reading, the debate in principle, I would ask the hon. gentleman in return why his party moved to adjourn the debate yesterday. We were ready to go. Those members chose not to.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's advice about where I should direct my frustrations.

I am going to come back to the first question I asked during this time allocation debate. This is an extremely sensitive subject. It is tremendously important that we be given the opportunity to pass appropriate legislation that respects all affected Canadians and communities. The minister himself has talked about the importance of having a common-sense bill, taking an approach that is respectful to everyone involved, and learning from past mistakes.

I will ask my question again. Since the minister is pushing for an approach that will not revive past feuds over firearms, why are we starting the process for this new bill with a time allocation motion? Does he not think this move runs totally counter to the very principles he claims to want to defend in his legislative approach?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, again, with respect to the representative from the NDP and the views he has just expressed, I share a good deal of sympathy for his perspective, but it was clear, on the record from Friday and yesterday, that every time Bill C-71 was going to appear on the Order Paper, the official opposition was going to pull some stunt to try to prevent the debate from proceeding. There is that clear indication from the official opposition. It is important for the affairs of the House to be organized in a timely way, and we are in the process of doing that through the motion presented by the government House leader.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, a few Canadians have been asking me why Conservatives are so intent on getting to the heart of the coverup in the Atwal India affair. It is because each time we probe, the government puts more walls up blocking the votes and now limiting debate with time allocation. That only provides us with more incentive. Clearly the Liberals are so worried about Mr. Jean giving 15 minutes of testimony to a committee of parliamentarians that they are willing to disregard democracy to do it, but I am not going to let that affect the debate on this important bill and the government's attempt to, by stealth, introduce a gun registry.

My question relates to the minister's use of statistics. The CBC on the weekend highlighted how the minister is misleading Canadians by cherry-picking statistics. He has to use five years to benchmark violent crime in Canada, because a few years ago, the level was so low that by using that timeline it makes it look like there is more of a problem than there truly is. However, to pin the changes the Liberals would be making, he only uses a statistical window of one to two years to suggest that it is rural crime and gun thefts that are the problem, as opposed to illegally smuggled weapons at the border, which we know is truly the problem.

The irony is that we have been talking about rural crimes, especially in western Canada, for two years and the Liberals have ignored it. When will the minister admit to the House that the Liberals are cherry-picking statistics and unfairly informing Canadians about the risk all just to sneak in their gun registry once again?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would never admit that, because it is not true.

The fact of the matter is that there has been a distinct increase in gun-related crime since 2013. Most crime statistics in Canada have been generally going down for the better part of two decades, and maybe even longer than that. However, in 2013, there was a sudden reversal of that trend.

In 2016, there were 2,500 criminal incidents involving firearms. That is up 30% since 2013. Gun homicides are up by two-thirds since 2013. Cases of intimate partner and gender-based violence involving firearms as reported to police are up by one-third since 2013. Gang-related homicides, a majority involving guns, are up by two-thirds. Break-ins involving the theft of guns are up by 56%. This is all since 2013.

I would ask the hon. gentleman how long we should wait: two more years, five more years, 10 more years? When would he find the statistics to be convincing?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us try this again.

The fact is that the government was elected two and a half years ago. As the minister has repeatedly stated, this legislation is nothing more than the Liberals respecting their campaign commitments, commitments that were made two and a half years ago. The Liberals have had two and a half years to table the legislation. The legislation was tabled on Tuesday.

The Liberals control the House agenda, despite the seeming frustration at the limited tools available to the opposition. At the end of the day, the motion to adjourn debate, whether that was presented rightly or wrongly notwithstanding, was voted in favour of by the very same Liberals.

The minister keeps saying that I should direct my frustration at the official opposition. I am asking him how he can believe that on an issue as fundamentally important to get right in respect of all communities and not go back to the wedge politics of the past, which he said he does not want to do, how on earth is it an appropriate approach to begin that debate and before even hearing from a critic of one of the three recognized parties, already be moving time allocation?

In what way does that ensure we are hearing the voices of all Canadians, so that we can get this right, as we want to do and as I imagine he wants to do, as well?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, when Bill C-71 is called another time, my understanding, in terms of the rules of precedence, is the New Democrats will put forward the next speaker, and I will be very anxious to hear the NDP's views with respect to Bill C-71. That is how the resumed debate will begin.

The next important stage is obviously in the committee work. I am looking forward to the very good work that will be done by all members in the committee, dealing with technical and detailed questions. The hon. gentleman is a member of that committee, and I am sure he will present his views in a very able fashion.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that we have had three pieces of legislation relating to firearms since the early 1990s.

Bill C-17 under the Mulroney government brought in all the background checks, all the security checks on individuals. It is basically the same checks we still have today.

One of the key pieces of this legislation that I think is important to all Canadians, and one we see starting to unfold in the U.S., is the issue of background checks for mental issues and other issues around the individual. We all agree on the fact that that is a deficiency in the background checks that were made during the Mulroney years under Bill C-17. I think it would be useful for the minister to take some of the members who have not been around that long back to the days when all that came into play after the massacre of the 14 women at École Polytechnique. This was brought in by the Mulroney government. It is almost exactly the same as exists today.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have two points. I thank the hon. gentleman for putting this whole discussion in its historical context, which is important.

There are specific provisions in Bill C-71 that will enhance the background checks that are to be done. Currently the law says that when those checks are done, when someone is applying for a licence and seeking approval to purchase firearms, the look-back over the person's history in terms of criminal offences, violent behaviour, and other types of activity that would indicate the individual should perhaps not be in possession of firearms is mandatory for a five-year period.

What we are proposing to do is to eliminate that time frame, so that the look-back can be indefinite through the lifetime of the person. It is interesting to note that the original suggestion for that change came from James Moore, a former Conservative member of Parliament.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives support protecting the safety and security of Canadians while also supporting the rights of law-abiding, innocent firearms owners.

This debate is really important to my constituency, which has faced escalating armed robberies of bars, hotels, and farm families right across Lakeland. Bill C-71 would do nothing to address the illegal gun trade by gangs or the illegal use of firearms. Bill C-71, just like always, would target law-abiding farmers, hunters, and sports shooters, who already comply with extensive rules, regulations, and paperwork.

Will the public safety minister advocate for stiffer penalties for criminals who use firearms and stop the revolving door in the legal system to stop repeat offenders? When it comes to a tougher crackdown on criminals who use guns, nobody wants that more than law-abiding, innocent firearms owners do.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, the House could have a very useful discussion in terms of enhancing penalties for those who misuse firearms, and I would look forward to that discussion.

The hon. member should not discount the value of the enhanced background checks as was described very eloquently in the House on a previous occasion by James Moore or the improvements with respect to the licensing system or the business records, which the police, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, say will be critically important to them in tracing guns that have been used in offences, in determining straw purchases, and in identifying activity that might engage gang activity. The accurate, consistent classification of firearms is important. The transportation authorization is also important.

I would also mention the $100 million a year that we will be investing with the provinces to enhance activity at the local level against guns and gangs, including the integrated enforcement teams that have been very effective in the last number of years in cracking down on illegal gangs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.