Murray Rankin

[Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, May 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce at the outset that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from York South—Weston.

I want to say at the outset of this debate that one should always be suspicious of legislation from the Conservatives that bears titles such as “common sense”, because we know that there may be a bit of an issue with the packaging and marketing of what they are doing.

I listened as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification and the member for Sault Ste. Marie began their debates in this place, and it was very clear from the outset what this bill is all about. It is about trying to create a wedge issue. They are trying to slam the Liberals for their apparent support of a long-gun registry, which has been denied; trying to suggest that the NDP would somehow bring back a long-gun registry, which is not the case; and mentioning by name many of the members of the NDP in northern ridings to suggest that this is what a common sense firearms licensing act is about. We know what this is about. It is another example of partisan politics and the creation of a wedge issue by the government for no particular purpose.

When I say no particular purpose, and therefore oppose this bill, it is pretty clear why this bill has been criticized by so many. It is not just by the usual suspects, if I can call them that. What about Mr. Jean-Marc Fournier, the Quebec minister for intergovernmental affairs? He said, “It goes against the concept of public safety and security.... I find it extremely inconsistent that the federal government should claim that this is being done for the sake of public safety”.

It is not being done for the sake of public safety. It is being done in a pre-election period for clear partisan purposes, demonstrated so clearly by the two Conservatives who spoke before me this morning.

Let us put that at rest and talk about the bill itself. Bill C-42 would give the cabinet new authority to override firearm classification definitions in section 84 of the Criminal Code by way of regulations that would carve out exceptions. Now, by regulation, the cabinet could deem firearms that would otherwise be captured by the definition of prohibited and restricted firearms to be non-restricted firearms. That is a great example of taking away from legislation the authority that was given by Parliament and giving discretionary authority to the cabinet to do what it wishes and to be open now, for the first time, to lobbying by gun interests to make arbitrary changes, should it wish, for political purposes.

That is what we do when we take away from legislation certain powers that are there and provide discretion to the cabinet. It is very clear that this is what is there, and of course, many people talked about that in the committee hearings that led to this legislation at third reading.

The bill would basically transfer the authority over the definitions and classifications to cabinet, rather than leaving it with the public safety emphasis that was previously there. That was so clearly put by the member for Sault Ste. Marie just a moment ago when he talked about the chief firearms officers as bureaucrats and talked in a very pejorative way about the role they play in our system. He would rather have the cabinet make those decisions, I assume, because they are obviously all wise on matters of firearms registration and so forth.

In terms of firearms licencing, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification talked about the grace period as somehow being irrelevant. Much of the testimony talked about how problematic the grace period of six months is. The standard firearms licence is for five years, and then there is a six-month grace period. As part of the process for licence renewal, firearms owners are screened for mental health issues, gauging risks to themselves and others. This assessment can identify potential issues early and assist police in reacting for public safety. Simply providing a grace period of additional time can lead to a delay of the information going to law enforcement, and that is inconsistent with public safety. That is why the witnesses talked about that.

The other part of the bill that has been criticized is the difficulty for some of the people in northern and remote communities to travel to take the test. We certainly agree with this position and salute the government for requiring this mandatory testing, for which aboriginal people have been exempted, which we also agree with. However, there have been concerns expressed about the administration of these new requirements in that context.

There have been concerns, many expressed by the Toronto police department and others, about having the resources needed to deal at the borders with the smuggling of illegal firearms into Canada. What has the government done? As we have seen on television news this week, it has simply cut the Canada Border Services Agency's budget dramatically. For example, by 2014-15, the CBSA's budget will be reduced to $143.3 million a year, with a cut of 1,351 positions, including 325 front-line officers and another 100 intelligence officers. So much for public safety concerns.

I had the honour of going to high school with Wendy Cukier, who is the president of the Coalition for Gun Control. Her organization appeared before the committee that studied the bill. She had some very serious concerns about another aspect of the bill, namely the transportation issue, which we heard about earlier. She said:

We believe that relaxing the controls over the authorizations to transport will increase the risk that these firearms will be misused. If you can transport your firearm to any gun club in the province, it means you can be virtually anywhere with it.

There are people who have spent their lives trying to deal with gun control issues and safety who have expressed very serious concerns about public safety with Bill C-42. There are those who point out that the government talks about safety but at the same time cuts budgets in so many contexts.

The fact that the Quebec government would have to tell us that this is not being done for the sake of public safety suggests that there are many people from many walks of life who have come to the same conclusion I have, and with which I introduced my speech. That is that the government is doing this simply as a wedge-politics issue, simply to draw a wedge, which is not there, on the issue of the gun registry.

When we see words like “common sense” describing the bill, we know the jig is up.

[Alzheimer's Disease and Other Forms of Dementia, May 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the official opposition to address this motion this evening. I wish to start by acknowledging something that the member for Huron—Bruce said, and congratulate and thank the government for the research that has been done on neuroscience. He quite properly pointed out the enormous amount of money that is made available for the important work of dealing with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, for which I salute him and his government.

On the other hand, this is what the Canadian Medical Association called a “lost opportunity”. It said very clearly that the defeat of the bill that the member for Nickel Belt introduced in this House, a private member's bill that would take action and do something, as opposed to expressing the opinion of this House, was a “lost opportunity”.

I want to thank the Canadian Medical Association, and Dr. Chris Simpson in particular, for leadership on the entire issue of finding a way to go forward in dementia. That is not just on research, which I concede is a critically important part of this puzzle, but also to deal with the stress, financial and otherwise, on caregivers, and on people who are living with this terrible disease. That is what I want to make the focus of my remarks.

Before I speak to those things, I want to congratulate and sincerely thank the member for Nickel Belt, who has worked tirelessly on this issue, for the leadership he has shown coast to coast in hearing from people who are living with this terrible disease, and for all he has done to raise my awareness and I think the awareness of other members in this House.

I was told by the Minister of Health not long ago, in another context, about how important it is for people to work in a non-partisan way on issues relating to health. She said that Canadians like to see us work together on these issues. I am entirely in agreement with that. That is why it is so disappointing to be standing here this evening, when we were on the cusp of passing the member's private member's bill to do something about this disease, talking about an expression of an opinion.

Once again, the Conservatives cannot help themselves, because even wording the motion shows what the game is before us tonight. They want us to talk about continuing to take measures to do so, to continue to focus on this, to continue to support. It is a self-congratulatory message that they want us to agree with.

I say at the outset that, of course, we will support the motion, virtually irrelevant though it is, because it is an expression of our concern over this issue. The lost opportunity, as Dr. Simpson pointed out, is the sad part.

I would remind members that on May 6 in this place, we had a vote on that private member's bill. Through the enormous efforts of my colleague from Nickel Belt, the vote was very close. The vote was 139 in favour and 140 opposed. Sadly, one of the Liberal members conceded that she forgot to vote. Had she done so, it would have been the law.

That is why I come here with a certain amount of sadness as I address this critically important issue. The statistics on this disease are absolutely staggering. As the member for Huron—Bruce reminded us, almost three quarters of a million people currently live with the Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, and cognitive impairment.

People with dementia may live for years with the condition and eventually need around the clock care. The cost, just at the economic level of the diseases involving dementia, is roughly $33 billion a year. As we have an aging population, the Canadian Medical Association reports that by 2031, fully 1.4 million Canadians will have dementia. By 2040, the annual cost to the country will be $293 billion. That is simply the cost. I am not talking about the emotional and other costs that are involved.

Other countries show leadership and have the national dementia strategy that my colleague has sought to create in this country, sadly lost tonight. Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, France, the United Kingdom, all have national strategies to address this epidemic.

The Canadian Medical Association urged us to join that list. We said no by one vote. Why is it important? It is important because we need research, and again I salute the government for that aspect of addressing the issue. However, it also points out that the occupation of acute care hospital beds with dementia patients is exploding and costing us billions. They could be placed in more appropriate long-term care beds if we could take a strategic approach in investing in that regard.

As we baby boomers deal with the so-called grey, or silver, tsunami coming at us, it will get staggeringly worse. Other countries are taking a strategic approach to this problem.

The emotional and financial burdens faced by spouses, children and other informal caregivers has to be addressed. There is nothing in the motion to address that.

I would like to talk about the comments made in the Edmonton Journal by a young woman named Joanne Cave, who is from Edmonton. She is a Rhodes scholar, studying at Oxford. She wrote poignantly about her mother who was a functioning person in the workplace and eventually this slow indignity of dementia that she talked about took its toll. I want to read what she said:

For my peers and I—twenty-something caregivers, stuck in a generational wedge we never anticipated—Canada is failing us now and for the future. Alzheimer’s isn’t just my daily reality; it’s a source of ongoing political frustration.

She talked about the current family caregiver tax credit hardly compensating for the loss of income or unplanned early retirement and the occasional support of personal care attendants and the like. She contrasts that with what the U.K. is doing with caregiving pension credits, or Australia with caregiving pension allowances. She points out just how far behind Canada is in addressing this crisis.

Along with the Canadian Medical Association, we call for increased support for these informal caregivers in various forms, financial and programs to relieve the stress, such as the need for respite workers and that sort of thing. The opportunity lost here is something that causes great sadness on this side of the House.

The Canadian Medical Association talked about the number of patients who could be elsewhere. They occupy about 15% of the acute care hospital beds across Canada, one-third of whom suffer from dementia. The cost of that is just so staggering when we put it in the context of what aging at home with appropriate support would allow, or even long-term care facilities, which are obviously more expensive. However, as Dr. Simpson points out, hospital beds are where a lot of these people are found, and will continue to be found. It is a strain on our system which will be enormous in the future.

After the defeat of the bill of my colleague from Nickel Belt on May 7, the press release of the Canadian Medical Association said it all. This ”represents a lost opportunity to make lasting progress in the serious and growing problem of dementia in Canada”. Dr. Simpson continues, “We remain one of the few industrialized countries to be without a national dementia strategy”.

According to the Alzheimer's Society of Canada, almost three-quarters of a million Canadians have been diagnosed with dementia, and that number will balloon to 1.4 million by 2031. This is the enormity of the problem with which we are dealing.

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons is also saluting the efforts of my colleague from Nickel Belt in his efforts to create a strategy. It talked about recognizing “the needs and improving supports for caregivers”, all of which CARP advocates for and supports. Fully 83% of Canadians reported that they believed Canada needed such a strategy, given the aging nature of our population.

There is absolutely no doubt as to the urgency of the issue facing Canadians. We see it. Many of us know people who have dementia. In fact, so many of us know people who are suffering from this terrible affliction and those who support them.

The government motion is an expression of concern. That it is of course supported by us, and I will recommend that the official opposition support this. It could have been so much better. We could have done something for Canadians.

[Alzheimer's Disease and Other Forms of Dementia, May 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nickel Belt brought forward a private member's bill, Bill C-356, not long ago. It contained much of the same material that this expression of opinion, which is what a motion is, contains. Why did the member vote against that initiative. Why did the government defeat the private member's bill that would have created a national dementia strategy in Canada rather than simply, as in the motion before us tonight, an expression of the opinion of the House?

[Business of Supply, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, with respect to income splitting in the current budget plan, why did the government decide to proceed with its handouts to wealthy Canadians rather than putting those funds toward the working income tax benefit to help low-income, hard-working Canadians?

[Business of Supply, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, part 3 of the omnibus budget implementation bill would retroactively change a lot to absolve the RCMP from wrongdoing at the same time as the police are investigating whether it broke the law. How does this provision of the minister's budget bill address the Canadian economy?

[Business of Supply, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, were guarantees secured or even sought?

[Business of Supply, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, speaking of naiveté, then what guarantees did the government seek and receive about the continuation of GM's Canadian operations?

[Business of Supply, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, the minister refused to answer that question as well.

I would like to turn to the auto sector. Was the minister aware of the pending 1,000 jobs being lost at GM's Oshawa plant when he decided to sell off the government's GM shares at a loss to balance the books?

[Business of Supply, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, GIS supplements are available only to people with low incomes. Of course, a loophole allows the wealthy to draw from their TFSAs while at the same time collecting GIS.

Does that seem fair and proper to you, minister?

[Business of Supply, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, the minister has been talking about TFSAs and interactions. Does the minister believe that millionaires should be able to collect OAS and guaranteed income supplement benefits that are, of course, intended to help low-income seniors?