Matthew Dubé

[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.

[Purple Day Act, February 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to bill C-278, which was introduced by the member for Halifax West, for the same reasons mentioned by the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I was not very familiar with this issue. In preparing to address the House, I realized that I did not know very much about epilepsy. Other members may also lack awareness, as I did. This proves that this bill and a day to raise awareness are important.

March 26, the day proposed to this House for raising public awareness, would be called Purple Day. We often hear criticism of awareness campaigns. Some supporters say that raising awareness does not solve the problem and is merely a symbolic gesture that could seem meaningless. I would argue otherwise and stress the importance of raising awareness. That is why we support this bill.

I said at the outset that there is a lack of understanding of illnesses such as epilepsy. This proves that it is important to raise awareness. This illness is not well understood and is also unpredictable. It is the unpredictability of the seizures that makes it so difficult for people to understand this illness. The unpredictable nature of epilepsy also makes it hard for caregivers, for example. I will come back to this point a little later.

I would like to start with a very simple suggestion. The NDP members will make this suggestion in committee. I am talking about very minor changes that are backed by the organization Épilepsie Montréal métropolitain. These are changes to the French version that will improve the French. We would like to substitute “Journée lavande” for “Journée pourpre”. Thus, “couleur pourpre” would become “couleur lavande”. In addition, the term “condition” would be used instead of “maladie” in describing epilepsy in order to better represent the situation of people who suffer from epilepsy. As I mentioned, these changes are supported by Épilepsie Montréal métropolitain, more specifically Aurore Therrien, the executive director of this organization.

It seems obvious to me that the epilepsy community and the various agencies that work in this field support this bill. I am thinking about the director of the epilepsy clinic and epilepsy research group at the Sainte-Justine Hospital, Lionel Carmant. He fully supports Purple Day and he does not see anything else wrong with the bill. He thinks there are many other opportunities. He adds that the bill should receive media coverage and that we should address the discrimination that people with epilepsy suffer at work and in many other areas of society.

I think this shows once again the importance of awareness and the impact it can have in society. Even though this is a symbolic gesture, it launches very important work that can result in major progress and breakthroughs.

I think all parties in the House support bills on work toward possible medical breakthroughs. I think we all consider matters of health to be important. These are non-partisan issues. Here we are looking not only at raising awareness, but also at medical initiatives that could result in treatments. I am no expert, but based on what I have learned in the past few days, this illness is not properly understood according to current data. For example, there are surgeries available, but very few people with this illness undergo surgery, even though in many cases it would improve matters.

The same is true of the various medications available. That is a more general and very important issue that MPs have tried to grapple with recently.

Let us talk about medication shortages and availability. Epilepsy medications are less readily available because companies make relatively little money on them. That makes them harder to come by. This situation has made people more aware of this problem, and they want solutions.

There is no doubt that the House would be willing to consider the problem of medication availability. If society were aware of this problem, that would help us deal with the issue. Members of the House, including parliamentary secretaries, ministers and committee members, could keep working on this issue. That is another important reason to support this bill.

With respect to raising awareness, consider family caregivers. I had a very touching, very interesting conversation that was very difficult for me. My colleagues will understand why. While I was at a grocery store in my riding over the holidays, I ran into a family friend who lives in my riding. His wife, a family friend, passed away in September. She had a malignant brain tumour. During the final months of her life, the family had a very hard time dealing with the situation. Their experience is relevant to this discussion because we are talking about the problems that people with neurological diseases face. Of course, the severity of the disease varies from one person to the next—cancer is not the same thing as epilepsy, but it does affect neurological functions, which can be very difficult for loved ones. People with cancer and those with epilepsy have somewhat similar experiences.

Out of respect for this man, who is one of my constituents and also a friend and a friend of my family, I will not name him. During our conversation, he spoke at length about the importance of family caregivers. He talked about how much a bill like this could have helped not only his wife, but also him and his family, who made sacrifices in terms of their jobs and the time they spent trying to create a positive environment for their loved one. In this case, they were trying to make the most of her final days. In my opinion, it is just as relevant in non-terminal cases, as with epilepsy for instance, to create an environment in which the person can function normally and feel less stigmatized, which is one of the consequences of living with an illness that not everyone understands. In such cases, awareness is very important and can be a first step towards financing and understanding family caregivers, who are a very important part of health care.

Family caregivers and the resources available to them are at the crux of the matter. People often lack resources and are misunderstood. Medication can help people live day to day, support them at work and enhance their emotional or social well-being, but it starts with public awareness. I cannot emphasize this enough. It is an important gesture that may seem symbolic from the outside, but it is a first step in the right direction for our society and all Canadians, in order to improve the living conditions of people who are living with a very difficult illness. I commend them and congratulate them because, from what I have read over the past few days, life is not easy for them. They are working very hard to get legislation like this passed.

[Financial System Review Act, February 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I have a very important question for my colleague.

I know that he is going to join the Standing Committee on Finance; perhaps he already has. I would like him to comment on the importance of studying this bill carefully. We all, particularly the members on this side of the House, know how important it is to have strict laws for our banking system. We also know that these are very complicated issues.

I would like my colleague to comment further on the importance of studying this bill carefully to ensure that we understand all of its complexities and are able to develop appropriate regulations.

[February 2nd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I have to acknowledge that I agree with part of my colleague's response. The provinces are in the best position to manage education programs.

For that reason we are asking for federal transfers to the provinces to ensure better management. This will guarantee better access and reduce student debt. As is the case with the health care system, the federal government has the power to help the provinces while ensuring that the division of powers is respected. I believe this is what the NDP and students are asking for and that they are aware of the different jurisdictions involved.