Nathan Cullen

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, March 1st, 2012]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-403, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (Civilian Investigation Service).

Mr. Speaker, this will be a bill of interest to all of my colleagues from all corners of the House. It is a bill that would require public oversight of the RCMP. It is something that the provinces have been making moves toward steadily and surely because there is a need, both for members serving on the force and for the general safety of the public, that there be proper and consistent public oversight of the RCMP. This would tackle a number of issues in one go. It would allow for accountability at the highest levels of the RCMP. We have seen a number of issues and scandals that have arisen over the years. It also would give assurance to front line officers, when they go into a situation, that if anything were to go awry, which it sometimes does, there would be public oversight of the investigation, which would allow the officers certainty and allow the public the certainty that a full and proper arm's-length investigation will be done.

This is something we have been working on for years and something for which we have seen growing support within the RCMP and, more broadly, across the general Canadian public. We think the time has long since come for the public to have oversight and enforcement of the rules that govern our national police force.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Ending The Long-Gun Registry Act, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think the danger presented here right now is that of a government that has become drunk on its own majority power. It is refusing to listen to the reason that has been presented to it time and time again.

I will give the government three sources. The opposition moved amendments throughout this process that would ensure the protection of law-abiding Canadians and gun owners, even through the passage of the bill. Police forces in this country have lobbied long and hard, as have victim groups, for the government to listen to reason. I actually had a moment of belief, of hope over experience with the government, that it would find its way to a path of reasonableness and allow the amendments that were necessary in the bill. These are amendments and ideas that the government used to believe in a short time ago.

If the Conservatives will not listen to police groups, victim groups or opposition parties, perhaps they will listen to their own legislation, their own government. In 2006, there was an amendment that was key in the previous bill. It said:

... that this measure would help ensure that guns did not get into the hands of individuals who should not have them, such as convicted criminals, and assist investigators in identifying the owners of stolen firearms or in conducting criminal investigations.

What was this amendment about? It was about the licensing and verification of a gun when it gets transferred from one owner to a new owner. This was an element that the parliamentary secretary for public safety had in her bill short months ago. Why did the government take that out when, by its own reasoning, there is a need to verify when a gun is transferred from one person to another?

As any gun owner would tell us, one used to have to verify whether the person one was giving the gun to was lawfully entitled to own a gun, that the person was not in a criminal gang, had no previous criminal record and no record of mental history. That is why one would have had to phone the chief firearms inspector. That was in the bill. That was the bill I voted for. That is the bill my constituents wanted me to vote for.

However, this is a fundamental change without reason from the government. There has not been a single ounce of evidence as to why the government would make such a fundamental switch. This is something that protects gun owners and the public. When a gun is transferred from one owner to another, there must be some verification process that goes on to make sure that the person who newly owns the gun is legally entitled to own it. That was all it did. Yet there is not a Conservative member who said here in the House, at committee or publicly, why this important condition was stripped out.

The Conservatives have also said that they had a mandate to destroy the records. Of course they did not. A mandate comes from a set of promises made during an election. There was no promise to do such a thing.

The list in world history of governments that have knowingly destroyed records is a very short list. Governments that have gone forward and destroyed public records encapsulate the worst of western democratic and non-democratic societies. I do not know why the government wants to put itself on that list.

In fact, in order to destroy these records the Conservatives have to change Canadian law to do it. The law of Canada says that the destruction of public records is against the virtues and values of this country. That is a good virtue. It is a good value.

When we moved amendments at committee to restore things that had existed in Bill C-391, the bill that had been presented and supported assiduously by this member, the government refused every single amendment, yet did not offer a reason. It did not offer examples or cause.

I will quote from the bill that was moved by the parliamentary secretary who just spoke. In paragraph 23(1)(c):

In the case of a transfer to an individual, the transferor verifies the validity of the transferee's Firearms Licence with the Canada Firearms Centre, and obtains a reference number for the inquiry.

That was in Bill C-391. It was an important condition because it protected the gun owner and it protected society. That is why it was there. How do we know that? The Conservative government said that was why it was there. Why take that provision out? Why take the protection out? It makes no sense.

On classification, under the bill we looked through the records as to what guns would be reclassified: a .50 calibre sniper rifle that can kill at two and a half kilometres. It is not the hunting weapon that my constituents use. They do not hunt with .50 calibre weapons. They do not shoot their target from two and a half kilometres.

The gun that is now going to be put into public use, again with a transfer from one individual to another without any certification at all, is a weapon that has recorded the longest shot kill in human history. Another weapon has been classified by the manufacturer as an urban assault weapon that can be modified into a 30-clip engagement weapon. These are not things that farmers and hunters use. These are not the things that my constituents have been asking for.

New Democrats pleaded with the government. We moved amendments that were based on the government's own legislation. We said this was the time to get it right. We knew this was going to happen. Conservatives have a majority, I congratulate them, but they need to get it right. They should not put gun owners and citizens at risk because they are not willing to listen to the experts and abide by their own legislation that was good enough to vote on eight months ago. Now, suddenly, there is a change of heart without reason and I worry.

I am concerned that in its efforts, speed and expediency to pass this bill in its present form without any changes, not a period or comma, the government will cause harm. It will cause harm to the law-abiding citizens of this country, police officers who serve us so proudly and gun owners right across this land. It is a shame.

[Ending The Long-Gun Registry Act, February 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will get right to it, if we can avoid the petulant heckling for a minute. The member has now gone away.

We have the opportunity to talk about making law that works for Canadians and the fulfilling of a mandate. That is what politics is about.

I have a long-standing record of voting for previous iterations of bills that were introduced by the Conservative Party to abolish the long gun registry. What changed here is fundamentally important—

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

My friend can choose another moment to enter this debate, if he would like.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police represents its members, as my friend represents the people in his riding in the House of Commons. I suspect that 100% of his constituents do not agree with everything he has uttered. So too is it in every situation and association. Of course, there are going to be dissenting views. No one suggested otherwise.

When we ask the government what it will cost to delete the records, it says it does not know and does not care. As the Minister of Finance's assistant, one would think he would be concerned as someone who manages the country's books. There is a big question mark over what it will cost to eliminate it.

Again, it is all one taxpayer. If the people of Quebec have already paid for this and they want the data, it is their data, and they should have it. The Privacy Commissioner says it is okay. The finance minister should say the same thing and get off his ideological horse and listen to some reason. It is a good piece of logic to follow.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, what we have on the record is from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. That seems to be—

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are personal stories around this issue on both sides, I would suggest. That is why this debate becomes so emotional very often.

I say to my Conservative colleagues that if the province of Quebec or a particular city wishes to establish a different set of conditions for the citizens they represent, why, for heaven's sake, would the government stand in the way? It is the same taxpayer. It has already been paid for once. The Conservatives are often happy to say that it is one taxpayer. Yes, I agree, this has been paid for. Why are they asking Quebec to pay for it again?

The second piece in this is important, which is the notion around liability. The gun owners whom I have been speaking with over the last number of months have said if there is no registration whatsoever, even at point of sale, and if the gun is then stolen or bequeathed, there is no record of its transfer and the gun is later used in the commission of a crime, how does the original owner prove it? How does the original owner verify that he or she had nothing to do with that crime? This is an increasingly important issue for the same law-abiding gun owners we have talked about.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the gun registry debate has gone on for a number of years, since before its creation, to its creation, to its eventual slow demise and death under the government, to this most radical posture that the current government has taken. I find we are now at a point where the government's ideology has fully taken over any sense of balance or common sense.

I say ideology because when a government says that its mandate, which it believes it has, to do something, in this case destroy records that were paid for by Canadians, was implied in the last election. The Conservatives did not talk about it. They did not ask any Canadians about it. However, it is implied. That is the most dangerous set of principles for a government to run on because, if it believes things are implied, it can read into any decision that voters may or may not have made to arrive at a conclusion that is convenient to the government of the day.

The Conservatives do have a mandate to end the long gun registry. In the unfortunate and broken electoral system that we have, a party can win with less than 40% of the vote but end up with virtually 100% of the power. That is something that we in the NDP seek to correct so that voters can see their votes actually reflected in the government that sits in this place. If there has ever been an example of a government abusing its power and its very thin marginal endorsement from voters, it is the present government on this issue.

The Conservatives hold up the privacy of the people we seek to represent and yet I have a letter here that the government is now aware of from no other person than the Privacy Commissioner of Canada who says that the act permits the disclosure of personal information under an agreement or arrangement between the Government of Canada or an institution thereof and the government of a province for the purpose of administering or enforcing any law or carrying out any lawful investigation.

There are no privacy concerns. One would suspect that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada would be the authority on any concerns with respect to privacy, otherwise, why set up the office? Why pay the salaries and have the staff if we are not going to listen to the advice of an officer of Parliament?

It seems, unfortunately, and too typical of the government to take an issue and then run to the extreme by suggesting that a $2 billion bonfire on Parliament Hill of all the records that have been assorted and assembled would somehow make that $2 billion come back.

I have an interesting moment for my Conservative colleagues who raised the issue of cost. It has been a fair criticism of the long gun registry because it was promised at a much lower cost than it eventually realized. Whether it was between $1 billion or $2 billion, it cost too much. That is a fair and honest concern.

However, we asked the government how much it would cost to delete all the records, because it is not a simple matter of hitting a button to delete seven million records. Each one needs to be done individually. The RCMP says that it is not sure of the exact number but that it would be many millions. When we asked the government if it had an estimate on the cost of destroying all of these records, it said “no, never mind, it is worth it“. Does that sound familiar to the ones who set up the registry in the first place, “no, never mind, it is worth it?”

The Conservatives have now flipped to the other side and, because of their ideology, they cannot find their way to have a simple and honest conversation with Canadians who paid for this data in the first place. The Conservatives cannot tell Canadians that they are going to burn this data and spend many millions more destroying it.

For heaven's sake, the government claims to respect the authority of the provinces and we have a province is clearly asking for the data.

Quebec has publicly asked for the data from the registry. Quebeckers paid for it. Why is this government telling Quebeckers that they need to pay again to get this information, to have a gun registry? It is ridiculous and stupid. This government will now say anything to the people of Quebec. It is saying that it is the Conservative government. It used to say that the opinion of Quebeckers was important. What an insult. It is ridiculous and it makes no sense.

We also see that the government, in its own legislation that it crafted up around Bill C-19, has to take an entire section to subvert and overcome Canadian law that says we cannot destroy records. It seems like a good law, does it not, that a government, whatever its ideological stripe, whatever its persuasion, whatever mandate it perceives, should not be capable of destroying records that were collected from the Canadian public. Does that sound familiar at all?

I wonder if next the Conservatives will destroy any of the votes that the farmers across the Prairies took in respect to the Wheat Board because they did not like the results of those votes. Let us destroy those records too because it is not in line with the ideology and the so-called mandate of the government.

It is anti-democratic. It is against the institution of what this place represents that from time to time we collect records from Canadians, criminal records, health records, in this case gun registry records. It is not for the government of the day to write laws that subvert other laws that exist for good reason.

What is the precedent being set by the government? That if the Conservatives find something inconvenient, they will simply write into legislation, “Never mind all those things we said about keeping records, that should be borne into our laws and Constitution of this country. We will simply override them because it fits our world view”.

The government spends so much of its time claiming that it defends the brave men and women of our law enforcement departments across the country. Then a law enforcement official comes forward and says, and my good colleague from Ontario will know this, “We would like access to the data”.

We have the letter from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police saying, “It is fine that you are shutting down this registry, but please allow us access to the data”. Suddenly the government is not so interested in respecting or listening to the police of this country. Suddenly the government says, “Never mind the expertise or the officials, the folks who run our police department. They do not know”. All the Conservatives have to say is, “I have spoken to police officers who, off the record, say the gun registry is not important to them”.

However, through their own democratic institutions, the people they put forward to head up their police associations, those people are on the record as saying, “Please allow us access to the data to do our jobs”.

It comes to a point where ideology clashes with common sense, and we are at this point with the government. We seek from the government a moment of common sense because there are those like myself, my friend from Western Arctic and others who have for years campaigned and voted on ending the long gun registry because that represented the position of the constituents I represent in northwestern British Columbia. That was their clear and express purpose, and I think we should always maintain that bind, but the Conservatives have inserted into the bill, unlike the last provisions the last time the House voted, a poison pill into the legislation, making it a poisoned bill, and they know exactly what they have done.

The Conservatives are giving the shout out to the most ideological, the most radical elements of this conversation for no good reason because the law-abiding hunters and farmers of this country who use guns to either feed their families or protect their homes, those of which I represent in northern B.C., those people do not care if Quebec wants to set up its own registry, if Montreal wants to enforce a different set of regulations around gun ownership, or if Toronto wants to enforce a more serious provision through the provinces, why, for heaven's sake, would the government care?

When I talk to people in northern British Columbia, rural Canada, they say that they have had their disputes with the registry, but if folks in Winnipeg want to have a different set of rules and guidelines directed to them by their province, so be it. Why would the government intervene? For a government that claims to respect the authority and jurisdiction of provinces, of which the cities are a product, why step in between?

The Conservatives have poisoned the well. They have made this an unsupportable piece of legislation, and there must be Conservatives across the way who campaigned on this, and as well as their right and intention, that understand that the precedent being created here is a dangerous one. It is a damaging one to the fabric of what this country stands for, which is simple and basic representation, that the burning of records is done by a government that holds on to an ideology of the most severe nature.

We should look through the history books. What governments burned records? What regimes burned records? There are not many. This government is about to become one of them. Do the Conservatives not have any pause?

That is right, my friend says. He would like to associate himself with other governments which, through the course of history, have burned public records. Now he scoffs. He cannot figure himself out. We are either for the burning of public records or we are not, and what we have arrived at here is a government that has lost its way.

The practice of wedge politics, of dividing one group of Canadians from another, rural versus urban, the west versus the east, Quebec and all the rest, has to stop. It is destructive and harmful. It does not serve any greater purpose other than some narrow, ideological partisan interest and it has to stop.

Change the bill, correct it, end the ideological attack and make some sense to all Canadians.

[Business of Supply, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am loath to interrupt my friend midstream, but I have been trying to understand what this has to do with a ban on the export of chrysotile asbestos. He has talked about older worker transition programs. He has spoken about the government's now-ended economic action plan.

I have been listening intently for a reference back to asbestos. If the member is suggesting in his comments that he is talking about transition programs for asbestos workers, I am all ears, but I have not heard anything about the topic at hand.

The previous Speaker has ruled on this a number of times and encouraged government members to get off the PMO notes and back onto the topic. I would encourage my friend to do the same.

[Business of Supply, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it shows a profound lack of knowledge of the employment insurance program because it does not go beyond retirement, but I take my colleague's point.

The $50 million we have already socked into this industry might be better spent just paying people not to go to work. I would be much better for their health and the health of the planet if we just simply took the money we have dumped into the lobbyists' pockets and into the pockets of lawyers who fight this thing at Rotterdam and every convention.

The government has finally been exposed because even India, Ukraine and other countries that have been doing their government's dirty work at the Rotterdam Convention and preventing listing have said, “You're right, world, we should list this”, and only the Conservative government is ruining Canada's reputation by being the one opposing any listing and common sense.

[Business of Supply, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this is the danger when an ideology is overrun: there is no capacity for a government to listen to reason and fact. It is not just the doctors listed by my hon. colleague, but the associations that they belong to and represent, which are many more health experts in the field from within Quebec and from without, across the rest of the country and around the world.

One cannot get a doctor who deals with cancer every day to suggest that exposure to asbestos is a good idea for anybody. Such a doctor cannot be found, other than the shills who were brought out during the tobacco industry debates. Those folks should have their licences ripped away, as far as I am concerned.

Part of the Hippocratic oath is “do no harm”. Government ministers should take a similar oath when they enter into cabinet. They should do no harm and stop propping up the industry, stop giving the industry taxpayers' money and allow the labelling and ban of asbestos to finally come to full and outright completion, because it is wrong, and the government must understand that it is wrong.