Matthew Dubé

[Privacy, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, after almost two years, the Liberals have not made a single change to former Bill C-51, despite their promises and serious constitutional concerns. The no-fly list is still in effect, intelligence agencies still enjoy enormous powers, and the list goes on.

By maintaining this legislation, which they supported when it was introduced, the Liberals are allowing gross violations of Canadians’ privacy to continue.

My question is clear: will they finally repeal Bill C-51 with the bill they intend to introduce next week?

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, as I did at second reading, I would like to reiterate how hard it is to face a difficult issue like this, given the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Constable Wynn.

Every one of us in the House recognizes that this kind of tragic event, a murder, comes to us and strikes at the heart of the work we are trying to do to improve things. In this sense, I would like to thank the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton for his efforts. He urged us to hold this debate, even though it is an extremely difficult and very emotional one.

It goes without saying that getting involved in political life on an issue, going to a parliamentary committee, and so forth, is already difficult enough for anyone. I certainly admire Constable Wynn's widow who had the courage to appear before the committee. I think all my colleagues would share that view.

We appreciate the opportunity to have been able to discuss this fundamental issue. I want to thank my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton for putting us on a path to try to fix this issue, regardless of whether we agree or disagree on how to fix it.

One of the first things we have to realize is that we are living in a new reality, especially when it comes to justice-related issues. That is the reality of Jordan.

Whether it is in a case like this or another one, we can see that Jordan has created a new reality in terms of the administration of justice and of delays. This reality threatens public safety. Not only do delays impose a heavy burden on the justice system, but they also sometimes result in the release of persons accused of horrific crimes, as we have seen in Quebec. It is not something we want to do. None of us wants to see this happen.

With that in mind, we have a responsibility to study bills in a robust and meaningful way. That is why I was very pleased to support the bill at second reading. I encouraged my colleagues in the NDP caucus to do the same thing. This is an important debate. We need to create a new reality in the justice system so that these kinds of events do not happen again.

To that end, the first big step that was taken was the work done by Nancy Irving in the report that she worked on to try to enure this kind of tragedy did not happen again. The member for Mount Royal quoted from it. For me, that was part of the testimony that was the most compelling, given how closely she had worked on trying to fix the problems that led to this tragedy.

I will read her comments into the record. She said:

I share the concern that this new language could turn bail hearings into mini-trials. That would certainly make bail hearings longer, and it would likely contribute to further delays in a system already struggling to cope with the volume of bail cases and the new time requirements set by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan, which were released last summer.

At a minimum, I think it's reasonable to anticipate that the meaning of this new language will be litigated, perhaps all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, before we receive judicial guidance. That could take years. In the meantime, the crown's standard of proof will be uncertain

Regarding the administration of justice, we must also consider the provinces’ role. Frankly, I do not like injecting partisanship into such a debate, but when the Attorneys General of Ontario and Saskatchewan, two very different provinces ideologically speaking, make the same observation that this could cause problems for the administration of justice and undermine efforts to achieve our common goal of ensuring public safety, I think we should take a moment and think about it.

I am therefore putting the ball right back in the government’s court. As the committee chair and member for Mount Royal just said, a letter from the committee was written and recommendations were made through the motion. This letter turned out to be essential, since the Minister of Justice has an enormous amount of work to do to ensure that justice officials and prosecutors have the necessary resources to fix this problem, even though the bill does not appear to be the best solution.

This is exactly what we are seeing in Quebec with judicial appointments. We are also seeing it in other jurisdictions where they have other problems with resources and the administration of justice. We have not managed to deal with the new reality of the Jordan ruling. This means that there is a lot of work to do. We hope that the minister will be motivated by the excellent work of my Conservative colleague and by the fact that we all recognize the importance of ridding our society of this scourge and this kind of tragedy. I do not doubt her intentions, but let us be honest: after 18 months, it is time to act.

Therefore, despite this difficult file, we are using this opportunity to point out just how important it is for the minister to acknowledge this issue and the testimony heard in committee, particularly from Ms. Wynne. She clearly explained the human cost of government inaction and our collective responsibility to make sure not only that our court system respects our law-based society, but also that we keep in mind respect for victims. We are trying to achieve several things, and in this respect, I believe it is a healthy, although extremely difficult debate.

This is not something I wanted to raise, but I want to acknowledge how difficult this discussion has been. I do not think the motion has to be the end of the debate. We need to re-examine how we can find the proper solution to this problem and ensure we do not create a situation, involuntary though it may be, where dangerous offenders, because of the new reality that the justice system has to cope with among other things and because of the Jordan decision, are allowed back on the streets. That would go exactly counter to what we are trying to achieve when we are debating the motion and the bill it stems from.

I want to end my comments by once again saying how much I admire the courage of Constable Wynn widow for sitting in front of committee, for sharing her experience, and for pushing us all to do better in taking on these challenging issues.

I also thank the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Even though I said it in French, and with all due respect to our interpreters, I want to say it again in English. I hope the Minister of Justice will read the Debates and the letter from committee. Most important, I hope she will think of the victims and the human cost of the lack of action on fixing the justice system, which seems to be more and more broken in some ways, and ensure we can achieve an objective of increased public safety, and, most important, no longer see families broken apart by this kind of despicable violence.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

What is interesting about the process and what members are forgetting is the argument that the Liberals have often used: since many Canadians are politically active, will they all have to be disqualified because they participated in politics in some way in the past?

To come back to Ms. Meilleur's case, she was an MPP and minister less than a year ago. She did not even complete her term in office. She could therefore have been appointed to a position by the Prime Minister while she was, in theory, still finishing her term as an MPP, a position that she left for family reasons.

I do not want to focus on just one case, but I would like to come back to the comments that my colleague just made about blame. It is easy for the Liberals to rise and talk about the past. However, we, in the NDP, have a concrete suggestion to try to improve the process and prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

Could my colleague elaborate on the importance of accepting that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have made mistakes in the past and of moving forward with a sound process? That would save candidates a lot of embarrassment, and it would ensure that we have quality candidates that all parliamentarians approve of, candidates who would be in a position to properly serve Parliament and Canadians.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s comments, and I congratulate her on her motion, which she moved the same week that we were treated to a grand speech in the House of Commons about the role the government claims to want to play on the international stage.

As we have seen all too often in matters of foreign affairs, and I dare say my colleague knows this better than I, this government is all talk and very little action, and that applies to nuclear disarmament too.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said there was no need to participate in this process, which he called “useless”, because we are already participating in another process, which is why I would now like my colleague to tell us why there is indeed a need to participate in this one.

Why is it so important for us to engage in this process if we really want to be able to say that Canada is back?

[Intergovernmental Relations, June 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the consent of the House to move a motion.

I will quickly give my colleagues and you, Mr. Speaker, a bit of context. As you know, you warmly welcomed the media and MPs at an event yesterday evening. The NDP was very disappointed that we could not attend because we were here in the House to vote.

That context is important for the motion. It is important particularly for some of the new Liberals to understand that. The government House leader can decide to schedule these time allocation votes whenever she wishes.

I would ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, as often as is reasonably possible, the government should arrange the House schedule to ensure that recorded divisions on time allocation and closure motions take place during the usual sitting hours of the House.

[Paris Agreement, June 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly true that the NDP is very happy to support the Paris agreement, despite the lack of effective targets. In fact, we do have targets, but they are the ones put in place by the former Conservative government.

That being said, I find this interesting and I would like to echo the comments made by the official opposition House leader. For example, it might have been nice to have a motion denouncing the President Trump's executive orders that discriminate against people from certain countries. This is the reaction we are seeing in the case of the Paris agreement, from which he withdrew. It seems we are being very selective.

The decision has now been move to propose a motion to make grand statements on foreign affairs. We are pleased to see Parliament getting some respect for once; we are happy for these statements.

However, we see how difficult it seems to be to get legislation through; things are moving rather slowly. Despite the grand speeches on work-family balance, parliamentarians are being made to work even harder because of this government's lack of efficiency; for example, it could have initiated a debate and collaborated with the opposition parties.

I would like the minister to tell us why the government is not going forward in a more constructive way to avoid having to gag the opposition and introduce time allocation motions, when all we need to do is have a constructive conversation on these issues so we can really work for Canadians.

[Firearms Act, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-346.

First of all, I want to thank the bill's sponsor for his well intentioned work. I also want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech to explain the government's position.

Before I get into the substance of the bill, I would like to outline a few important principles, the first being the unfortunate reality in which we live. For a very long time, the governing party, the Conservative Party, wanted to politicize the debate surrounding the use and regulation of firearms in Canada. It even sent fundraising emails.

I find that disappointing, because it created an atmosphere that pitted Canadians against one another, depending on their perspective. Ours is a vast country, and the reality is very different from one region to the next, and from an urban area to a rural area. When the government should have been encouraging people to work together and have a healthy debate on this issue in order to develop effective and appropriate public policies, instead it tried to use the situation to its political advantage. We again find ourselves in an unfortunate situation. However, it is important to understand the context and proceed with a rigorous review of a bill such as this one.

I also want to talk about the importance of the work that police officers do, not politicians and their decisions about what is good for public safety. This is, after all, a public safety issue. The bill sponsor was absolutely right when he said that the vast majority of firearm owners are law-abiding citizens.

That being said, when we draft a bill, we have to consider those who are not law-abiding. These unfortunate exceptions can endanger public safety and the safety of all Canadians. That is where I am coming from on this bill, and that is the perspective that will inform my comments to the House and my recommendation to my caucus as the NDP public safety critic.

The first problem is, of course, lack of clarity. I think the parliamentary secretary did a good job of explaining which rights are lost and which are not when a licence is suspended.

Under the current system, the loss of the firearms may seem like a nuisance to a firearms owner. However, under the system being proposed by my colleague in his bill, a gun owner could have his firearms licence suspended for legitimate reasons, for example if he is no longer fit to carry firearms.

After all, as the parliamentary secretary said, many things can change in 10 years. Meanwhile, the individual continues to have firearms in his possession. In these circumstances, the changes may result in a threat to public safety. These are unfortunate exceptions that must be considered when developing public policies and before accepting or rejecting a bill.

The second point is as follows. The licences do not expire, and since a licence can easily be reinstated, we unfortunately cannot support failure to provide a consequence. In fact, the renewal process is extremely important and we believe that it is very reasonable.

Contrary to what seemed to be claimed in the opening address of this debate, legislative changes were made recently, which has simplified the process tremendously. There is even a six-month grace period after the expiry of a licence.

This grace period allows people to renew their licence, even if they run into problems with the mail, they are facing personal challenges, or they are late in renewing it for all sorts of administrative reasons. As we know, life moves fast. We need to ensure that law-abiding gun owners who are aware of the importance of obeying the law and who use their weapons responsibly for legitimate purposes are not punished. That is exactly why there is a grace period. It is important to point that out.

We are also very aware of the cost that may be associated with the various obligations. It costs $60 for a five-year licence for a non-restricted firearm. That seems like a reasonable amount to me because the licence is good for five years. If I remember correctly, and forgive me if I am wrong, people can also pay for their licences online. Given how the various levels of government are changing the way they use technology and the Internet, these systems will only improve in the coming years. The various government services will be changing and improving these systems, while ensuring that they work properly, or at least that is what we hope.

We are also talking about what happens when a licence has to be renewed after five years.

Obviously some of the important administrative pieces of information would change. We talk about addresses and marital status and things of that nature that are obviously, in some cases, more innocuous than others. However, we also have to recognize, as the sponsor of the bill also recognized, that when people initially get their licence, they go through the process of mental health evaluations, and the criminal record and background are checked.

While all those different checks happen initially, it is important to have the licence renewal process. For example, the information goes through CPIC and other authorities, who can decide whether it is appropriate for that individual to continue to own and properly use a licensed firearm.

In that context, it is obviously very important. We look at, for example, the issue of marital status, and when it leads to requiring a statement from the person's ex-spouse, that kind of link can be very important. When we think of domestic violence, we obviously would not want someone who had committed that kind of crime to continue to own and operate a firearm. It is important to emphasize that those cases are the exception, certainly a tragic exception, but an exception nonetheless. I do not want to repeat myself, but when we elaborate on these public policies and evaluate bills like the one proposed by my hon. colleague, we need to take those realities into consideration.

Once again, it is important and bears repeating: Given these criteria and the fact that it has been somewhat alleviated in the last few years, there are reasonable grace periods put in place. We feel that the current system is very respectful of all the pieces that my colleague mentioned. Certainly I believe in many of our ridings, and surprisingly even in suburban and urban ridings in some cases, there are many Canadians who own firearms and enjoy their different activities, whether hunting or other outdoor activities like sport shooting and such.

We obviously are mindful of that, but I believe that the current system is appropriate for ensuring public safety. It is reasonable. Unfortunately, I believe that what my colleague is proposing would go counter to that. It would create a more unreasonable situation when it comes to ensuring public safety. As far as we are concerned, it would create too large a vacuum when it comes to certain obligations that we ask of these gun owners.

With that, I thank my colleague once again for bringing this debate forward. Certainly we are always open to working on progressive ideas when it comes to respecting Canadians and the participation they might want when it comes to hunting and the other outdoor joys we have in Canada. However, unfortunately we believe that this bill does not go in a direction that is appropriate and that would ensure public safety.

In closing, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his very informative and relevant speech about striking a balance between public safety and respect for Canadian gun owners.

[Cannabis Act, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and questions.

On the first point, decriminalization, there is something we find disappointing. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister was asked that question. He said that decriminalization and even a retroactive amnesty should, in fact, be part of the discussion about the legislation. He therefore clearly implied that this was part of the plan. However, the Minister of Public Security has flatly closed the door on that possibility.

We recognize that decriminalization imposes a burden on the judicial system and the member gave an example of that. In the House, there has been much discussion of the Jordan decision in connection with other cases. Given those circumstances, it is obviously very difficult to deal with all the cases of recreational use. However, on the second part of what the member said, I would like specifically to make the connection between recreational use and minor offences.

From the outset, and even before the last election campaign, the NDP has not suggested decriminalizing organized crime, or sales, or any of those things. I do not want to generalize or indulge in stereotyping, but, for example, we are talking about a university student who smokes marijuana in his room and then goes out on campus with a small quantity in his pockets for recreational use. That is what we are talking about. We are not saying that a big criminal organization that grows hundreds of plants should not be punished. That distinction needs to be made.

On a final point, the question of revenue, I wonder about the same things in terms of prices and what the money will be used for. The provinces have a role to play in that regard, but I note that they have not yet been adequately represented at the table. I hope the government is going to do a better job of this.

[Cannabis Act, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today we are speaking about Bill C-45, a Liberal government plan that caused a stir even well before the election. When the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party and aspiring to his current position, he spoke about his own marijuana use and later said he was going to launch this major project.

First, we must point out that there is a problem we must now deal with. In fact, we have been asking for a long time for the details and the plan for this bill, information that has been lacking for far too long. When someone who is aspiring to be Prime Minister, and an MP before that, stands for election and talks in very vague terms about legalization, it creates a lot of uncertainty. We have seen that the judicial system and police forces are also dealing with a great deal of uncertainty.

When the Liberals came to power almost eighteen months ago, I asked the RCMP commissioner some questions when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I wanted to know how he thought the existing law should be applied in light of the Prime Minister's long-term vision, which was not materializing.

With respect to public safety and security, there are other consequences stemming from the lack of a plan, a vision, or an explanation from the government about this bill. One of those consequences is still present today, and it may very well remain after the bill is enacted: the consequences for Canadians crossing the border to the United States.

Growing numbers of American states are legalizing marijuana. In spite of that, we see that Canadian citizens crossing the border, whether to visit family or to go on vacation or to work, are being asked outright whether they have ever smoked marijuana. They are being judged for that and banned from entering the United States.

While we acknowledge the Americans’ responsibility, and their right, to make that determination for themselves, we can readily conclude that it is extremely problematic that a product legalized in Canada will have such major consequences for Canadians.

In spite of the current scrambling resulting from the behaviour of President Trump, our relationship with the United States is nonetheless very important, and smooth flow at the border remains crucial for many Canadians, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

As we saw when my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford asked a question today during question period, we have no information about Canada’s various international obligations. We have still not been given the details about how we are going to go about this.

What we are seeing is the consequences associated with a process that was significantly lacking in transparency up until the bill was introduced, in spite of the report of the task force, whom we do thank for that.

I am going to talk about what the bill does and does not contain. Before getting into the substance of this legislation, I want to say that we will be supporting Bill C-45 at second reading. It is high time we moved forward with this debate.

However, even though we support the bill, we have important questions and concerns. Some will be resolved in committee, but others will be more difficult to resolve and will remain unanswered.

The question that comes immediately to mind relates to the responsibilities of the provinces and territories. I raised the question of uncertainty earlier. The greatest uncertainty relates to shared responsibilities with the provinces. For example, important questions arise in relation to taxation, that is, the revenue that will be derived from this. That is often one of the arguments when we discuss legalizing marijuana. People often tell us that one of the positive consequences of legalizing marijuana is that this revenue will no longer be in the hands of organized crime, and will instead be in the government’s hands.

However, we know that given the way our country is structured, all the issues relating to sale and taxation are to a large extent under provincial jurisdiction.

I have heard some Conservatives raise the question of the rights of landlords whose tenants might like to grow plants. Tenants can set rules of their own. That said, in Quebec, for example, it could be the Régie du logement that ends up having to come up with a set of rules. All these questions obviously call for a robust, transparent and very thorough conversation with the provinces.

It does not seem to me that this has happened so far. This is one of the bill's major problems. We will get answers to some of these questions when we have a clearer picture of the role the provinces are being called on to play.

Governing in Canada can be very complicated. There are different issues in the different regions of the country. This is a vast country, as we know. We hope that the provinces will get their say. We are certainly not convinced that they have had a chance to explain their concerns and say how they would like things to be structured.

Naturally, the government could ask that we have these discussions after the bill has passed. As a parliamentarian from Quebec, I see that I need a lot more information about what will be required of the provinces to do and what the provinces may require, in turn, before we can give the government a blank cheque.

In spite of all this, as I said, we support the government’s approach, up to a point. In recent years, there has been much talk about what we know as the war on drugs. That is what the media calls it. It was popularized, in a sense, by Ronald Reagan when he was president in the 1980s.

We agree with the government that the present approach is a failure. Obviously, putting our heads in the sand and contenting ourselves with punishing people is not an approach that promotes education and prevention or benefits young people or cultural communities. Unfortunately, specific segments of the population are too often victims of profiling or discrimination by the judicial system, and, without meaning to generalize, by some aspects of policing.

We can look at the American example and see how marijuana is classified in the United States. In the hierarchy of dangerous and serious drugs, marijuana is classified ahead of other drugs like heroin or cocaine. We see that there is nonetheless discussion happening. The reason I mention the American example despite the fact that it goes outside our borders is that there are a lot of fears circulating. We must take the opportunity to set the record straight.

With respect to discrimination, in our humble opinion, it is too often the same people, the same members of our society, who are punished unfairly or too harshly in connection with their recreational use of marijuana, among other things. That is why we have called for decriminalization for a long time.

When it comes to the Prime Minister, we find it unacceptable that a member of his family is able to get off because of the privileges he enjoys in our society as a result of his status, while young people, or, as I said, other members of society who are too often victims of discrimination will still have a criminal record and the negative repercussions of that record for something that will soon be legal. In the meantime, we are calling for amnesty and decriminalization.

With respect to the question of revenue, which will also have to be negotiated with the provinces, we believe that this money can and should be used for education and prevention. This is a golden opportunity to change the direction of the war on drugs and truly focus on a progressive approach. It must benefit primarily the people for whom it is intended, namely young people. We must not see cronyism or an approach that takes a direction different from the one promised by the Prime Minister.

I may be able to expand on that when I answer questions.

[The Environment, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling regarding the admissibility of a question, you also mentioned that you would take the time to examine the blues and the content of the question.

If I may, I would like to point out that the two key elements of the question from my colleague from London—Fanshawe had to do with, first of all, the reaction of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness with respect to the implications of the issue raised, and second, an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act, which is a federal jurisdiction.

In closing, I would like to say that perhaps if the parliamentary secretary had listened to the question, he would not have hidden behind a Speaker's decision and stood up with more than words for the brave men and women who protect us.