Matthew Dubé

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 6th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief because I want to give my colleague a chance to comment further on one of the very important points he raised. He said that some countries might be considered safe when that is not necessarily the case, particularly certain countries in Europe where widespread discrimination is causing problems. If we took the time to examine ethnic conflicts, we would find several examples in Eastern Europe, particularly in Hungary, as the member mentioned. I would like to give him the opportunity to comment further on this problem and the prejudices against some countries.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my colleague reminded us that last week, the House adopted a unanimous motion concerning Shannen's dream. As he so aptly put it, the same principle applies here when talking about issues that should transcend politics.

However, we are being accused of fearmongering on this issue. The Conservatives assure us that there will be no cuts. However, they refuse to tell us whether, yes or no, they will vote in favour of the motion and that there really will be no cuts. Everyone should be able to vote in favour of the motion.

I wonder if my colleague could comment further on the very serious implications of any budget cuts regarding veterans.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I heard it in the questions posed to my colleague and I also heard it from other speakers: it seems that the NDP's opposition to certain free trade agreements automatically makes us the villain who is always opposed to any kind of trade.

It is important to point out that if there is continual opposition to something, it is because the same mistakes are being repeated. As my colleague said so well, since the 1980s we have seen the same problems in Canada and in the countries we trade with, or in countries where wages are very low or the working conditions are very poor. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to go into more detail about what he just spoke about.

In the history of Canada, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have traded positions depending on their status, that is, depending on whether they were in opposition or in government. The NDP, however, has practical proposals that we have not yet had the opportunity to put forward, and we will oppose measures that are unacceptable in Canada and elsewhere.

I would like to hear a little bit more about this from my colleague.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I also want to allude to the comments made by our Liberal colleague. He said that, given that we have never voted in favour of any free trade agreement, we are automatically against any effort to promote our products and our businesses. As my two NDP colleagues said so well, we do not have to conclude such agreements at any cost and under any conditions. So far, no free trade agreement has met the expectations of Canadians and those of the international community. I would like to allow my colleague to conclude his speech by talking about that.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. The government members are trying to make this a black and white issue, and trying to say that the NDP is simply against free trade. My colleague has introduced many important nuances. My question and my comments will focus on a fairly central aspect of his speech, the international impact.

When I attend events in my riding, people often talk about Canada's international image. It is not just about involvement in a war or financial aid to countries in difficulty. It is also about our conduct when trying to reach agreements with other countries. What kind of dealings do we wish to promote—although it may be done in a more subtle and not necessarily direct manner—with a free trade agreement that is bad for the other country and for human rights in general?

I would like to give him an opportunity to provide more details about that and to tell us what we could do to improve Canada's reputation when negotiating free trade agreements.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. As I mentioned in my speech, I have a letter that was sent to me by Jocelyne Sauvé, the director of the Montérégie health and social services agency. She is opposed to this bill because of the suicides that the firearms registry could prevent. The hon. member raises a very important point.

That is one of the reasons why we would like to continue the debate. There are people who are very concerned, and those concerns must be taken into account. As the NDP has pointed out numerous times, we want to make amendments to address the concerns of people who use the registry and to respect the opinions of experts and people who have spoken out against Bill C-19.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I think it is very problematic. In my riding, there are organizations working for the rights of women who are subjected to violence. One of them is the Centre de femmes l'Essentielle, in Beloeil. These organizations work very hard. Therefore, to disregard their testimony, their letters and their discussions with us on this issue is very problematic. It reinforces the fact that this is not a black and white issue. It is not merely a matter of annoying hunters with the legislation. There are really some very important social issues, including the situation of women. This is very important and it should be taken into consideration in this debate.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. I agree that we should be able to continue the debate. That is our duty and that is our right as members of Parliament. I am not saying we should not vote. There is no question that we will get to that point eventually.

I just want to touch on the first part of the hon. member's question. Incidentally, I thank him for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to say that I certainly do not overlook the expertise of those members of his caucus who were once police officers, and nor do I overlook the contribution they can make to this debate. I take exception to their comments to the extent that they use their own experience to reduce or downplay the value and quality of the testimony by other police officers and witnesses. I have a hard time with that. In addition to their personal experience, many opinions have been expressed in this debate, including some from people working in that same environment. Just because they share the same experience does not mean that what other police officers are saying is wrong.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that I did not like the way the Conservatives, with their 13 former police officers, thought they had the right to shoot down every one of the arguments we made just because we do not have any police experience in our caucus.

The point of my reply was to explain that we represent the people, whether we have had the same experience or not. I have a letter here that Jocelyne Sauvé sent to my office. Ms. Sauvé is with the Montérégie health and social services agency. This letter is very important because it supports the remarks that my colleague from Gatineau just made. People in the health sector are talking about other aspects of this issue, not just about hunting or the very tragic, high-profile cases like the École Polytechnique and Dawson College. People are talking about situations in which health is a factor, such as suicide.

I would like to quote from her letter:

A number of studies have shown that a home where there are firearms is five times more likely to be the scene of a suicide and three times more likely to be the scene of a homicide or a firearm-related accident than a home without a gun.

The government claims that whether a firearm is registered or not changes nothing. However, the idea is to have a system that discourages the inappropriate use of a firearm by someone with that kind of problem. That is why Ms. Sauvé, the director of the Montérégie health and social services agency, supports our position on maintaining the gun registry. One example we often hear is that people have to register their cars. A registry would deter people who should not possess firearms from acquiring them.

A comment was made the last time I used the argument that we have to register our vehicles. We are talking about federal and provincial jurisdictions. In the case of the gun registry, it is the Criminal Code that applies. When we use the example of vehicle registration, it is for comparison purposes. There is a system in place to deter individuals who would use their vehicles inappropriately.

Let us get back to the tragedy of the female police officer in Laval, which was referred to at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. As with any governmental or social system, it is not perfect. We will never be able to prevent every tragedy. The fact that the system did not work in some cases is not sufficient argument to abolish the registry.

Some members represent rural ridings and regions where there are people—hunters—who comply with the law and who use their firearms for sporting purposes, including hunting. Even though I represent a riding where people do not necessarily hunt, some people there are still required to register their firearms. This means that I can understand the situation and have discussions with individuals in the same situation as the citizens represented by Conservative members.

It is very important to point this out. Back home, the reaction of those who must deal with this system is to wonder whether it is perfect. We NDP members say that it is not perfect. However, it is the best option right now, and we are very open to making improvements such as those that were proposed in the past, in 2010, by our party and by our former leader, Mr. Layton. That is the kind of proposals that we would put forward. Abolishing the system and destroying the data against the will of the provinces, particularly Quebec, and against the will of our fellow citizens and of NDP members is not the proper way to proceed. That is why I oppose Bill C-19.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to comment on what the Minister of Public Safety said when we were debating closure on Bill C-19.

He said that the House has been debating the gun registry for 17 years, or almost as long as some members have been alive. I believe that I am one of those members to whom that comment could apply. Nevertheless, it is interesting. I am the oldest of three sons, and my mother always told me that just because someone speaks up more often does not necessarily mean that they are right. That applies here. Just because it has been 17 years does not automatically justify closure or the government's current position.

I object to the idea that we are not qualified to speak to the bill and share the people's ideas if we have never been police officers. In the end, as MPs, we may not necessarily be representative of the various segments of the population that we represent. We stand up for seniors even though we are not seniors, we stand up for youth even though we may not be young, and we stand up for retirees even though we are not retired. The fact that there are 13 former or active police officers in the Conservative caucus is not adequate justification for diminishing the words and testimony of other police officers and police associations.

I would like to come back to a quote that is very relevant to this debate. After Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, the work he did with regard to the economy was the subject of great criticism. For example, the unemployment rate was not dropping. This is relevant to this debate because President Obama spoke to the media and said that prevention is never applauded because it is invisible and very difficult to measure. In that context, President Obama was talking about the fact that the United States did not experience another recession. To him, that meant success. However, we cannot talk about something that did not happen. I think that the same logic applies to this debate.

We cannot talk about all the deaths and all the problems that have been prevented because of the firearms registry for that very reason—they were prevented. They never happened. It is very important to keep this in mind when reading quotes. The hon. member for Gatineau made the same comment, and another member who spoke earlier made a similar comment when he spoke about the police officer who was unfortunately the victim of a crime and who was shot despite the registry's existence. I believe that happened in Laval. We heard about it during testimony given before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Regardless of the measures we put in place, whether they be tax measures or economic measures, regardless of the work that a government can do, the system will never be perfect. So, to give an example where the result was tragic and did not meet the expectations we have of the system in place, once again, does not constitute a legitimate rationale in this case.

I will continue my comments a little bit later.