Debates of Oct. 28th, 2011

Alain Giguère Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question.

We are talking about a registry for firearms and hunting rifles. A semi-automatic hunting rifle with a magazine of 30 bullets is nothing to laugh at. I do not think that a duck being shot at will turn into a dive bomber and attack the hunter. I do not think that a deer will turn into a tank and crush the hunter. Clearly, long guns include weapons that are not hunting rifles but weapons of war. Currently, it is acceptable to own a semi-automatic weapon with a magazine of 30 bullets, which is exactly what was used at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. It was a combat weapon.

I would like to know how these combat weapons will be controlled if we get rid of the registry.

Guy Caron Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. He raises a valid point. That is why we need to work with the government to eliminate these irritants and ensure that the usefulness of this registry is being taken into account as well. The government seems to be ignoring that aspect.

The Conservative Party strategy since 2006—and even before then, since we are talking about the creation of the registry—has been to polarize debate, to say that it is entirely one thing or the other, black or white, for or against. The registry involves much more nuanced issues, and they have not been debated in society. Obviously, that has benefited the Conservatives and their fundraisers.

However, the societal issues and technical issues have been removed from the debate. That debate has not taken place in the House. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas mentioned that, since 2006, there have been exactly three hours of debate on this issue. That is why we are calling on the Conservative government to work with us to eliminate the irritants and ensure that the positive aspects of the registry can be maintained.

Raymond Côté Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I said to an African friend of mine—from Mali, in fact—do not cry over spilled milk.

Two billion dollars was spent to create this registry. Now it is working, or at least it could be if the government did not take every opportunity to undermine it. For five years, this government has done everything possible to keep the gun registry from being efficient and useful. It is like a car owner who refuses to do an oil change or any maintenance and drives around with a flat.

How can my colleague have been complicit in this all along and now justify the destruction of this registry?

Kellie Leitch Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have been extremely clear. We made it clear to our constituents that we will scrap the long gun registry. Unlike the members opposite, whether that be Charlie Angus or Malcolm Allen, who said that they would—

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

Order. I am sure I do not have to remind the parliamentary secretary to refer to members by their ridings and not their names.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Kellie Leitch Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, whether it be the member for Timmins—James Bay or the member for Welland, these individuals said they would scrap the registry and then flip-flopped.

We stand by our promise to stand with law-abiding farmers, duck hunters and rural Canadians in every region of the country and scrap the long gun registry.

Raymond Côté Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, only a fool does not change his mind.

What I find really unreasonable is that we have been making suggestions for a long time. Our late leader made them. When we speak directly to gun owners, users, these are measures that seem perfectly reasonable to them. I have hunter friends who got emotional when they told me that they hated the process of answering questions that practically made them seem like potential criminals. That makes sense and we are aware of that. That is why my colleagues here supported our leader and eventually rejected the bogus private member's bill that had been introduced at the time by this government.

Kellie Leitch Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to being called a fool in the House of Commons and await the member's apology in response.

As I mentioned, we will be scrapping the long gun registry. We are standing behind the law-abiding farmers, duck hunters and individuals who use long guns for sport unlike those NDP members, whether it be the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, the member for Sudbury or the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, all of whom said they would scrap the registry and have now flip-flopped.

David Sweet Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was present in the public accounts committee when the Auditor General brought in her report and talked about the flawed nature of the data that was in the report. My colleague's profession previous to coming to the House of Commons was that of a physician. She might want to elaborate on just how dangerous it is to try and deal with flawed data as a professional. In this case, of course, I am talking about law enforcement agencies. Maybe she could allude to the fact that data is still available for licensing.

Kellie Leitch Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, evidence-based data is data we can act on. In the case of what my colleague had commented on, this data is not clean data. It is not data that can be utilized in an effective manner.

As I also mentioned in my speech, data does not save lives. Those individuals who need to be accountable, who are causing the grief on our streets, and the reason why patients end up in emergency, are not the law-abiding long gun owners we are dealing with here. They are criminals who need to be taken off of our streets.

In this case, we are standing up for those law-abiding duck hunters, farmers, and individuals who are just carrying on with their daily lives, like my constituents in Simcoe—Grey. They are very different from those criminals on the street that we need to ensure are taken into custody.

David Christopherson Hamilton Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to join in the debate. I rise more in sadness than in anger, given that during some of the time of the development of the registry I was the solicitor general of Ontario responsible for this file. I was very supportive, as was the government that I was a member of. I understand the background and why this was brought about. I understand, accept and agree with the ultimate goals of why this was brought in.

However, what is probably most disappointing is the government's continuing propensity to find issues that are wedge issues and pit one region or province against the other in Canada. Much of the debate here is really about the differences in the lifestyles of people in the various parts of Canada. Demonizing on either side, quite frankly, is not helpful if the purpose is to build a better, stronger Canada and in this case, a better, stronger, safer Canada.

Jack Layton invested a lot of his political currency in this file. This has been read into the record, but I wish to read it into the record again during my submission today. These are the words of Jack Layton, our former leader. In August 2010 he said:

Stopping gun violence has been a priority for rural and urban Canadians. There’s no good reason why we shouldn’t be able to sit down with good will and open minds. There’s no good reason why we shouldn’t be able to build solutions that bring us together. But that sense of shared purpose has been the silent victim of the gun registry debate.

[The Prime Minister] has been no help at all. Instead of driving for solutions, he has used this issue to drive wedges between Canadians...[The Conservatives] are stoking resentments as a fundraising tool to fill their election war chest. [The Prime Minister] is pitting Canadian region against Canadian region with his “all or nothing show-down”.

This is un-Canadian. This kind of divisiveness, pitting one group against another is the poisonous politics of the United States. Not the nation-building politics of Canada.

When the issue came up, Jack was under incredible pressure to whip the vote because of his strong advocacy to diminish and eliminate violence of all sort, particularly domestic violence and violence against women. Had the registry gone down on that vote, his legacy would not have been the proud one that he ended his life with.

The cornerstone of Jack Layton's political life was respect. He made proposals for changes to recognize and respect the legitimate concerns of women in the country who are seeing far too many other women being killed at the hands of their own partners using guns.

Also, to be fair, the lifestyle in the northern parts of our country is different. I have been privileged enough to be in the high Arctic, to stand in the Northwest Passage. It does not take long to understand that there is a whole different life there, as in rural areas of our provinces and in the extreme corners of our provinces. We are so big that these regional issues are tensions that we deal with all the time.

What upset Jack the most was a government that was deliberately willing to exacerbate those built-in natural tensions that are part of trying to govern Canada given the extremities and differences that exist in how we live our daily lives in this country.

Therefore, it is much more with sadness than anger that I rise. I only have a few minutes, so I will say what I can in the short time that I have.

However, in terms of defending why the registry should stay, under any other circumstance, the debate for the government would begin and end with this one quote:

The registry gives officers information that keeps them safe. If the registry is taken from us, police officers may guess, but they cannot know. It could get them killed.

That was said by the chief of police in Toronto, Chief William Blair, who also happens to be the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

There is not just one quote. Here is another:

Scrapping the federal Firearms Registry will put our officers at risk and undermine our ability to prevent and solve crimes.

That quote is from Chief Daniel Parkinson, who is also the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

Now, under any other circumstance, if two prominent police chiefs, heads of national and provincial organizations, were to come out with statements like that, that would automatically be the policy of the government. Yet, here we are, in this bizarre situation where the Conservative government, whose members do everything they can to wear the brand of law and order, is going against the advice of the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and, in the case of my province, the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

We will hear members who get up to talk about some rank and file members make comments like this. But make no mistake, under any other condition, the government would recognize that while these chiefs are not on the front line anymore, they are the individuals who we task with making the decisions about which of our officers, and when, put themselves in harm's way. Sometimes it is harder for commanders to put somebody else's life at risk than it is to put their own life at risk.

Here are these chiefs who have to make those soul-searing decisions, saying, “Please don't do this”. To quote Chief Blair, “It could get them killed”.

In my view, there would not be a need for any further debate in the real world. But we are in this place and it is different.

I realize my time is going to run out, so I am just going to keep going for two minutes.

This is a quote from the federal victims' ombudsman, Sue O'Sullivan:

Though there are varying points of view, the majority of victims' groups we have spoken with continue to support keeping the long-gun registry.

It is interesting. The government members always talk about caring about victims, just like they always talk about caring about our soldiers, but they are great in the rhetoric. We hear the “Hear, hear!” and meeting soldiers. They stand and start saluting all over the place.

However, the reality is that it has been the NDP that has been standing up for those soldiers when they come back here and are no longer there for the parades and the send-offs. It has been our caucus members who have stood up for the plight of ordinary veterans who are living in poverty and facing all kinds of medical challenges. The government is not responding to them.

This is the same issue. We have the police chiefs on the one hand, we have our federal victims' ombudsman on the other, both saying, “Do not get rid of this registry, please, in the interests of the women in our society and in the interests of the officers we ask to go out and protect us day to day”.

The argument should be straightforward. It is for us on this side. We will continue to press to preserve this. I do not have any time to talk about the scorched earth policy of eliminating all the data. Maybe we can get into that in Q and As.

Dick Harris Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member is practising for a movie role or not, but I suppose he does not have to deal with facts when he is just trying to display his oratorical skills.

That party is the most hypocritical party that we have ever seen in the House, because those members have voted against every anti-crime bill that this government has put forward, and now they have the audacity to stand up in the House and support a gun registry that does not mean diddly to any person with a criminal intent to use a gun, whether it has a registered number on it or not.

For goodness' sake, millions of illegal firearms are used in the majority of crimes every single day all across the country. The people using those firearms do not care whether they are registered or not, and the police, before they go to a scene, train themselves to anticipate that there could be a firearm involved whether there is a gun registry or not.

David Christopherson Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am sure there was an important point in that rant.

The member wants facts. How much more factual do we have to get than the chief of police of Toronto, who is the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police? We are not just making something up.

I made the point in my remarks, and I meant it, that under any other circumstance the Conservatives would be standing up and quoting what police chiefs are saying when it comes to fighting crime and keeping Canadians safe. We are quoting the most prominent police chiefs in Canada, yet the Conservatives are accusing us of playing some kind of game.

I would ask the member to look seriously in the mirror in terms of who is playing games with Canadians' safety.