Matthew Dubé

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We will support the bill at second reading, but we intend to ask questions and propose amendments in committee.

That being said, I cannot provide a detailed answer to his question at this time. This bill must still be thoroughly reviewed, and I have to consult my constituents and public safety authorities, as well as my colleagues, to find out their constituents' concerns. I have already had some excellent discussions with them to ensure that I raise the most important issues in the time that I have. Sometimes we do not have as much time as we would like, but that is the reality of our work—when the speaking time is not limited by the government, of course.

I thank my colleague for his speech and I would like to reiterate that we will support the bill at second reading. We will certainly discuss it. I hope that the minister will be open to amendments and to the work done by the committee. I will certainly not be shy about approaching him and his parliamentary secretary with suggestions, which we will also raise in committee.

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and comments. She has hit the nail on the head.

Background checks through an individual's lifetime instead of the past five years is a good initiative that is supported by many stakeholders across the political spectrum. In addition, repealing certain provisions brought forward in the last legislature concerning the transport of firearms is a step in the right direction.

Our questions are mainly about the cost of these measures. How will they be implemented? These are legitimate questions raised by the people we represent, on both sides of the debate. It is very important to mention this. The NDP's approach has always been to be respectful of everyone because we must protect public safety with as little partisanship as possible, even though that is the nature of this place.

As my colleague so rightly said, it is hard when the government moves a time allocation motion when there has been so little time for debate. Members must then ask technical questions during the debate on the time allocation motion because that is the only opportunity they have to do so.

I have complete faith in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, of which I am a member, and I look forward to being fully involved in this work. However, at the end of the day, members have questions to ask on behalf of their constituents. This is a missed opportunity, because we do not want the issue to be politicized. We must succeed at the first attempt, insofar as possible. That is what the NDP is going to try to do with this government's bill.

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question because it does allow me to get into that aspect, which I did not have a chance to raise in my speech.

The Conservatives have correctly raised the issue that this is far from sufficient. It is only one piece of the much larger puzzle of how we tackle the growing epidemic of gun violence. There are a few things we could do.

First of all, when we talk about counter-radicalization efforts, we often talk about it in the context of radicalized individuals committing acts of terrorism, but that also applies to dealing with gangs. Gangs, too often, are recruiting vulnerable young people. That is something that we need to stem the tide on.

Certainly, the government falls back on the money that is invested, but as with any investment made by a government, the devil will be in the details of how that money will be spent and what initiatives will be looked at. While the summit that took place here in Ottawa a few weeks ago was a welcome overture to that, it is definitely far from sufficient. That is one issue.

The other issue is tackling the issue of guns coming across the border from the U.S., which is a huge issue, and making sure CBSA has both the authority and the resources to tackle that and is able to collaborate with law enforcement. There is also the growing epidemic of domestic thefts of firearms, which is a problem, and a problem that both rural Canadians and law-abiding gun owners will look at as something they want the government to tackle as well.

There is a whole slew of issues here. I will just end with this. I think another thing that would be great to bring back, which unfortunately was a cut in the previous Parliament, is the police recruitment fund. It was a great fund that went to funding both provincial and municipal efforts. It was federal money that went to the provinces and municipalities to invest in police and policing. When that money was lost, we saw things like the Éclipse squad in Montreal being hurt by that. Their mandate, in large part, was to tackle gang recruitment and gang violence.

Those are the kinds of initiatives we can look at. Certainly more robust background checks like we see in this bill are helpful, but far from the end of that discussion. I welcome the Conservative members' contribution to the debate in that regard, because it is an important issue. This is certainly not the end of that discussion with this legislation.

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I thank my colleague for his intervention.

Let us make one thing clear. The Conservatives keep raising certain issues, but we have to make a distinction between Bill C-71 before us today and the existing legislation. The reason something is still enshrined in legislation is that the change has not been made yet. If the previous government felt it was necessary to make a change, it had the chance to do so.

As my colleague mentioned, there were changes, in Bill C-42 for one, which were often problematic, and there were missed opportunities. I commend the government for trying to correct all that through Bill C-71.

What I appreciate about the government's approach, and that appreciation is contingent on the answers we will receive and the process in committee, is that the government understands that some things need to be corrected while others are fine and can be left alone. That is how to achieve the balance that ensures public safety and respect for all so as not to rehash past debates that were far too often partisan instead of being driven by the desire to create sound public policy.

I think that my colleague agrees with me on this. I hope that the government will continue on this path. We shall see.

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I see that Bill C-71 is before us again. I imagine the government felt somewhat embarrassed by how it managed this very important and sensitive file.

One thing that has become crystal clear over the last number of years when it comes to the issue of firearms in this country is that far too often, successive governments have played wedge politics with an issue that is fundamentally about respect for communities. It is about public safety, and more broadly speaking, about respect for all Canadians, including, of course, firearms owners.

When the Liberals come forward, as the minister has, with the intention of presenting legislation that seeks to provide, as he says, common-sense legislation, which is certainly, I would acknowledge, a step in the right direction, and then decide on time allocation before I, as the critic for one of the three recognized parties, have even had a chance to speak to the bill, it demonstrates, unfortunately, a lack of seriousness with respect to what is a very serious issue that we, as parliamentarians, must get right.

After less than one hour of debate, the government allocated just one day of debate to this bill. The minister praised the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, saying that this committee has qualified members and that they could study the technical aspects of the bill. This is very flattering, since I am a member of this committee, but let's be serious. The vast majority of members in this House have concerns to share about this bill on behalf of their constituents.

The NDP recognizes that this bill is a step in the right direction, and we are generally in favour of it, but there are some questions we want to address in this debate, and this is not solely my responsibility, as critic. All members are responsible for raising questions. It is not just up to the members who sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to raise these concerns.

When the government moves a time allocation motion after so little time, it goes against the principles espoused by the Minister of Public Safety. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé mentioned in the debate on this motion, even the previous government, known for its record number of time allocation motions and gag orders, would not have done this.

Those principles come after excuse after excuse has been made. The Liberals have tried to blame the official opposition, saying that it moved a motion to adjourn debate yesterday. Notwithstanding whether one might or might not agree with the tactics being used in the House to make a point on certain issues the Liberals are running away from, the fact is that one party in the House voted in favour of adjourning debate on Bill C-71, and that was the Liberal Party. Despite the heckling, the Liberals perhaps should consult the Journals of yesterday's proceedings. They will see that they were the only ones in the House who voted to adjourn debate on the bill.

Moreover, last Friday members representing the Liberal Party made comments on panels, alluding to deaths in communities as reasons why we had not come to that debate, which is shameful. The Liberals have been in power for two and a half years and have not come forward with this legislation. Then they choose to blame everyone but themselves for the cavalier way in which the bill is coming through the House. That is extremely problematic. As I have said multiple times, and will continue to repeat both in the House and outside the House and at every opportunity I get, this issue should not be one in which we seek to create division and make it subject of procedural and partisan gain. It is one we have to get right.

I know the public safety minister has his heart in the right place on this. I would implore him to perhaps speak to his House leader to ensure his approach is the one being put forward, given the way the government runs the agenda in this place. We cannot afford to get this type of issue wrong. The New Democrats will work and strive in that regard, both here for the limited time we have, and in committee. I can commit that to Canadians without a shadow of a doubt.

Now that I have given an overview of the procedural issues and of how the file has been managed, I would like to focus on our concerns about Bill C-71.

Gun control is an emotional issue for many people, and with good reason. This is about showing respect for those who have had to deal with unimaginable tragedies. They see the bill as an opportunity to defend their community and neighbours and ensure that no one else has to endure such tragedies. There are also law-abiding citizens who hunt or practise shooting sports. We also want to show respect for them in the legislative measures put forward.

We therefore need to strike a balance between the two while protecting the public. That is the approach we need to take when we address these issues in the House. Instead, over the years, we have unfortunately seen more divisive approaches. Gun control has been used as a political fundraising tool, and some questionable action has been taken as gun control has been turned into a partisan issue.

For members of the NDP, one thing is clear. We want to keep the public safe while showing respect for every Canadian and community concerned by this issue.

I will, however, give the minister credit where credit is due since I think that this bill is a step in the right direction. It contains common-sense measures that we can support. I am thinking of the background checks in particular.

Currently, we only go up to five years for the retention and renewal of a licence. However, in a quick study of some of the jurisprudence, in some of the precedents that have been set by the courts, they have deemed it absolutely appropriate, legal, lawful, and respectful of charter rights to go all the way back in a lifetime examination for one's background check, whether it is criminal records or other pieces that are looked at as part of this process. Members on all sides have shown support for that. Both current and previous members from all parties have shown support for it. Essentially, when it comes to background checks, the bill would bring legislation in line with what is already appropriate practice, which has been deemed so by the courts. That is a reasonable measure to ensure we protect public safety.

The other element, one that has received a lot of attention and is a key piece of the bill, is records being kept by store owners who sell firearms to Canadians. On this, let me be clear. When it comes to maintaining those records, I agree with the minister that the vast majority of reputable businesses already do so. We are seeking to standardize the practice, because it will now become part of the law, and also protect that information from government and law enforcement unless law enforcement has a warrant obtained through the courts. That has been happening for a very long time in the U.S. Therefore, I do not see it creating an additional burden on businesses.

However, following the minister's speech before the time allocation motion, I asked him what would be done with respect to consultation with business owners to ensure the standardization did not carry an unreasonable cost and that it was done in a way that was respectful of best practices. Business people know best at the end of the day. Unfortunately, while the minister acknowledged that work had to be done to have that standardization and that it would come from best practices, the details were rather sparse. Therefore, we will be looking at that to ensure the standardization of those practices do not create an additional burden on businesses. Of course some businesses may have to modify their current practices in order to be in line with what will be a legal and government-mandated process. We will keep an eye on that, particularly through the committee process.

I look forward to hearing those business people, who are the experts, bring forward their perspectives, and how to ensure the minister's consultation is done appropriately, in a way that will ease the burden on small businesses, which is already, in some regards, far too large. I say that going beyond the issue before us today.

It is very important to emphasize the issue I raised a few minutes ago and that is obtaining a warrant.

At present, it is a standard practice for businesses to keep this data. After all, it is not unusual for them to keep records about large purchases. This is not just about firearms, and any responsible business owner already does this.

The important clarification made by the bill is that this information can only be obtained with a warrant, in the context of an open criminal investigation.

As I mentioned, we will ask questions so that the minister's consultations will ensure that the standardization of practices does not create an additional burden on businesses.

The other changes that would be brought in by this proposed legislation concern Bill C-42, which was brought forward in the previous Parliament under the Conservative government. It sought to give automatic licences for the transport, for any purpose, of restricted firearms. However, members of the law enforcement community saw that as problematic, because there would be all kinds of instances where it would be difficult for them to know whether individuals, who were stopped by roadside stops, had perhaps firearms in their vehicles, or an individual with unlawful intent, which is an important point to bring to this discussion.

One of the issues is how to find the balance for lawful purposes and more routine purposes. The legislation opens the door to that. Therefore, automatic licences for transport would still be given, for example, for bringing the firearm from the location where the purchase took place to the location where the firearm would be stored. It would be the same for an individual going from the location where the firearm was stored to a shooting range. However, we have other questions over the consequences of some of the administrative burden.

Guns shows are one example. In that context, people need to transport firearms. A number of people might want to obtain an authorization at the last minute.

The changes in this bill requiring that there be a process for obtaining such an authorization are quite appropriate. We now want to know how this will be administered.

In the technical briefing, the minister mentioned several options including an Internet portal. Naturally, any MP who does business with the federal government, for example when looking into matters for their constituents, knows that responses are not always timely. I am not referring only to matters related to firearms licences.

If an added burden is created, while entirely appropriate, it must be done as simply as possible and without creating too much bureaucracy that will make life difficult for anyone seeking to get such an authorization.

Of course, we recognize the relevance of the changes being made and the fact that this legislation repeals certain aspects of Bill C-52 regarding authorizations to transport restricted firearms in all circumstances. In the last Parliament, the NDP opposed Bill C-52, but the changes being made here are appropriate and will ensure public safety.

Another extremely important aspect of Bill C-71 is the issue of weapons classification. This issue has often been controversial, but the NDP's position has always been clear. We believe that the individuals best equipped to make those decisions are the men and women in uniform who keep our communities safe, in other words, the RCMP.

One of the changes made by the previous government gave cabinet the authority to reclassify restricted weapons. That was problematic, and brings me back to the point I made at the beginning of my speech. This issue is quite divisive and has too often been politicized. Previous governments have failed to respect the expertise of impartial individuals who make common sense decisions in the interest of public safety. That is why the NDP is pleased that the RCMP will finally be given the authority to classify firearms.

The bill does leave cabinet some power, so we will look at that in committee to make sure it does not open the door to policy decisions that could result in the kinds of situations that have come up before. It became apparent some time ago that politicians are not equipped to make those kinds of decisions and that if we wanted to ensure public safety in a way that was respectful of all Canadians and all communities, experts had to be the ones making those decisions.

The second part of the bill relates to the now-defunct Bill C-52, which this government introduced quite a few months ago. The government just added some elements that we support. It repeals the Conservative government's changes to access to information laws. The changes were made because the Information Commissioner took the previous government to court over access to information requests pertaining to the gun registry. When the registry was destroyed, the previous government began to destroy the data before the House of Commons and the Senate passed the bill.

Destruction of the data was found to be illegal. I do not want to get into the politics of the registry, but citizens did have the right to request access to that information. That led to legal action between the Information Commissioner and the government.

The government is now making these changes to the law that the Conservatives had put in place to legalize something that was illegal. By doing so, it is correcting the mistakes of the past to resolve this dispute.

There is also the fact that Quebec will be getting all of the former registry's records involving its population, the only data left from the registry. Quebec's National Assembly is entitled to continue the process as it sees fit and in accordance with the principle of asymmetrical federalism.

I would now like to return to the Supreme Court decision on this issue. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the right to destroy the data but, in the spirit of co-operative federalism, it strongly urged the government to return the data to Quebec. This bill does just that, giving the National Assembly the power to do what it wants with the data, as is its right, of course.

I will close by saying that the NDP will always support a common-sense approach that respects all communities and all Canadians and guarantees public safety.

These issues are too important not to get right. They are too important to be lost in a partisan black hole.

We will continue to strive in that direction. That is always what our approach has been, and it is what it will continue to be. I look forward to doing that both here in the House and in committee, working with colleagues in all parties, including colleagues in my own caucus, hearing the comments from their constituents, to make sure that we get this right. This is a good first step. Let us keep going in this direction.

If the minister's heart is truly in the right place, I ask that he pass that message to his House leader to make sure we have the proper time to take the necessary steps to make sure that we are addressing any questions that have been raised by me and those that will inevitably be raised by other colleagues.

There are good things here, things that we support, and we just want to make sure that we get them right.

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

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?

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

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?

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

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?

[Firearms Act, March 27th, 2018]

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?

[Firearms Act, March 26th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, needless to say, this has been a divisive issue within our country. The Liberals and Conservatives have deliberately tried to turn communities and Canadians against one another.

I congratulate the minister on his efforts to come up with a more sensible approach. That said, despite the positive steps, we do still have concerns about certain aspects, particularly retailers keeping records, which is already common practice among most businesses. How is this process going to be standardized? What kind of consultation will be done?

This bill calls for a standardized process for record keeping. That is appropriate, and we support it. However, I wonder if the minister could explain how the government plans to determine best practices and standardize the process among all businesses.