Debates of March 27th, 2018

Conflict of Interest Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to subsection 15(3) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, it is my duty to lay upon the table the list of all sponsored travel by members of Parliament for the 2017 calendar year as well as a supplement from the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons entitled “Perspectives on Climate Change Action in Canada: A Collaborative Report from Auditors General”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #640

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

Bill C-71—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;

and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister about Bill C-71.

The government has clearly stated that it will not reintroduce a gun registry in any way, shape, or form. In January, however, the Government of Quebec implemented a mandatory gun registry. All Quebeckers must register all firearms, be they long guns or restricted weapons. Now that creates a problem: if someone from New Brunswick, Ontario, or elsewhere in Canada wants to sell a firearm to a Quebecker, or vice versa, the transaction has to be registered.

I would like to ask the minister if there were any discussions with Quebec about this. Was Bill C-71 designed to make it easier to record transactions in the Quebec registry?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, we said in our election platform, and have said repeatedly since, that we would not return to any form of a federal long gun registry. That was the explicit promise, and that promise is being delivered exactly as we made it.

In relation to provincial governments, as the honourable gentleman knows, provinces have jurisdictions, which are their exclusive domain. The issue has been tested in the courts in the province of Quebec, and the legislative provisions Quebec has come forward with have been determined to be within the jurisdictional competence of the provincial Government of Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the time allocation motion before us today.

The firearms issue stirs up a lot of emotion, and with good reason. Actions taken by both the Liberal and Conservative governments have sown division. They have tried to judge Canadians based on their postal code or lifestyle. That is extremely problematic because when the goal is to ensure public safety and sound public policy, it is important to have a meaningful debate that welcomes appropriate questions and results in appropriate legislation. I have said a lot of nice things about the minister to the media, because I think this is a step in the right direction.

However, we have a great many questions. Our constituents are asking us questions. We want to raise their concerns during this process, during this debate in the House of Commons.

Why table a time allocation motion on such an important and often controversial issue? Why prevent us from asking these questions?

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

Madam Speaker, I have a good deal of sympathy for the position that has just been taken by the representative of the New Democratic Party. In the proceedings thus far, the NDP has not had an opportunity to participate in the debate. The House will know that we have on two occasions attempted to bring Bill C-71 to the House of Commons, last Friday and again yesterday. On both occasions, the official opposition chose a different procedure and stymied the opening of a discussion on Bill C-71. There were two speeches, mine and the official representative of the Conservative Party, and then the Conservative Party moved to adjourn the debate before even giving the NDP an opportunity to be heard.

I understand that is not a fair situation with respect to the NDP. However, the honourable gentleman's grievance is not with the government. His grievance is with the official opposition, which is obviously not interested in having a serious discussion about this legislation. The better place for that discussion to be had would be in the standing committee, where the various parties can call forward witnesses, talk about the provisions of the act in detail, and bring forward whatever amendments they think are appropriate to improve the legislation.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I get confused with the messaging coming out of the government, not just on firearms issues but yesterday it wanted debate and today it is going to cut it off. There is no consistency.

The minister keeps bringing up the point that he is not bringing back a registry when all points lead to it. Registrars look after registries. Is this registrar responsible for the menu up in the cafeteria or the parliamentary restaurant? What is his job if it is not to look after that registry? This is a backdoor registry; everything points to it. I would like to hear how the minister is going to explain that, because let us make it clear, registrars look after registries.

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

Madam Speaker, the reference to the official who is named in the legislation that the hon. gentleman has just made is one that goes back many years. In fact, the term “registrar” existed in the legislation all through the term of the Harper government, and it did not change that language.

The fact of the matter is that if the standing committee thinks it has a better title, such as CEO, director general, chief official, or whatever, we would certainly be prepared to entertain an amendment to change the title.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, through you, I want to express my absolute disappointment. As a person who represents a rural riding, I am doing my due diligence in talking to my constituents and gathering information. Having this debate shortened so dramatically leaves less time for us to have that robust discussion, send that information, and make sure that it is said in the House.

I really think it is important to point out that the Conservatives moved the motion to adjourn debate but the Liberals are the ones who voted to end the debate, so when we are talking about what happened here, I see two wrongs and they definitely do not make a right. Therefore, I would like the member to explain to my constituents why we are not being allowed to make sure their voices are heard in this place.

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

Madam Speaker, beyond the two opportunities where we already tried to bring the bill to the floor of the House for debate, there will be one full day of debate assigned to this legislation. Therefore, there will be opportunity.

When examining the provisions of the legislation in detail, as we all know, the real spade work is done by the diligent members who serve on the public safety and national security committee of the House of Commons. That is where witnesses can be called, where the evidence can be examined in detail, and where amendments can be proposed.

I certainly encourage all members to participate in the upcoming debate in the House, and that the members of the standing committee do their due diligence to examine every single clause of the bill to make sure it is in the public interest.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what we have seen is an appetite from Canadians as a whole, in all regions of the country, to see legislation brought forward that truly reflects what they expect the Government of Canada to do.

I am very much aware that the Conservatives brought the motion to adjourn the debate the other day. As the minister has pointed out, we are sympathetic to making sure the New Democrats will be afforded the opportunity to speak. My understanding is that the NDP, and members, will be afforded the opportunity to ask and participate in the debate, not only during their speaking time but also through questions and answers, as well as at committee, and so forth.

I wonder if my friend and colleague could provide comments on just how important it is, from a Canadian perspective, that we move forward on this very important piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important for the House of Commons to not only debate matters but to also come to decision points, take votes, and make decisions.

The improvements in the legislation with respect to background checks, licence verifications, and business records, and the changes on classification and transportation authorizations all reflect what we promised Canadians during the course of the election campaign. The bill faithfully applies those election promises. All of it is in pursuit of three goals: public safety, assisting police in investigating crimes, and making sure that all of this is fair and reasonable in its application to all Canadians, including law-abiding firearms owners.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, Joe Jordan is a former Liberal MP. I remember reading a couple of weeks ago that he suggested that if the Liberals were to bring this bill in, they should pass it as quickly as possible, basically before Canadians are really aware of the contents and can step forward and oppose it. Therefore, it looks like members of the rural caucus from across the way have failed their constituents one more time.

I want to ask a specific question about reference numbers. There is a procedure that is being introduced to track firearms' sales across Canada. In order to obtain a reference number, businesses need to not only have the buyer's name but also the buyer's licence number, as well as the firearm's serial number. Therefore, we see all the foundations being put in place for a registry across Canada. However, we are told that private transactions would also require a reference number.

At any point, will the process to obtain a reference number for a private transaction require the firearm to be identified in any way?