House of Commons Hansard #39 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was registry.

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 133, 135 and 137 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 133
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie Halifax, NS

With regard to Table 2-16 in the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Inventory produced by Environment Canada and submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: (a) what are the corresponding sector by sector greenhouse gas emission figures for 2009; (b) has the government revised any of the greenhouse gas emissions estimates from the years included in the above-mentioned Table 2-16, and if so why; and (c) do the oil sands sector figures reported for each year included in the above-mentioned Table 2-16 include the indirect emissions resulting from the electricity used in oil sands facilities, transportation of the oil, refining, and from any associated land use changes or deforestation, and if they are not included (i) why are they not included, (ii) what is the government’s estimate for what they would be?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 135
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie Halifax, NS

With respect to the business-as-usual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission projections for Canada, last published in 2008: (a) what are the government's 2011 GHG emission projections for the years 2015 and 2020, disaggregated by source of emission and by sector, including, with respect to the oilsands sector, the GHG emissions related to in-situ bitumen mining, bitumen mining and upgrading; and (b) what are macroeconomics assumptions, data on demand by industry for electricity and energy, petroleum supply and distribution, natural gas supply and disposition, conversion and emission factors and other assumptions that these business-as-usual GHG emissions projections are based upon?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 137
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies Vancouver East, BC

With regard to recommendation number seven of the Report of the Standing Committee on Health, tabled on June 17, 2010, titled “Promoting Innovative Solutions to Health Human Resources Challenges”: (a) what is the government’s position with respect to physiotherapy as a method to reduce health care spending while increasing the capacity of Canadian physicians; (b) what is the government’s position with respect to a pan-Canadian increase in direct access to physiotherapy services without gate-keeper consultation from physicians; (c) what is the Treasury Board’s position with respect to allowing employees of the federal public service and members of the federal client groups, including, First Nations and Inuit, RCMP, veterans, immigrants and refugees, federal inmates, and members of the Canadian Forces, to have direct access to physiotherapists, without gate-keeper consultation from physicians?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Ending the Long-gun Registry Act
Government Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, to finish my speech, I would like to mention two main things about Bill C-19, or two arguments that have been repeated and that need to be corrected.

My first point—and we agree with the government—is that the cost of initially implementing the registry—over $2 billion—was far greater than what was planned and announced by the Liberal government in office at the time. The cost of implementing the registry was staggering. However, the registry now exists. I found it interesting that the member for Cariboo—Prince George was asked a question by a member of his own party about the annual costs. He was unable to respond. I can say that the current costs are minimal compared to the program's contribution. The registry currently exists. We can use it.

It is a little bit like if someone decides to renovate his or her basement. That individual is told that the renovations will cost $10,000 but, in the end, they actually cost $50,000. Will the person completely scrap the renovations because they cost too much? No. That person will work with what they have got. The fact that the registry initially cost a lot of money—$2 billion—does not justify eliminating it. That does not make any sense. The registry currently exists. The operating costs are minimal, and the registry has many benefits, as I mentioned in my speech before question period.

The second point that I would like to make is that the Conservatives have now decided that abolishing the registry means that all the data must be destroyed, even though the provinces—Quebec, among others—want to keep this data to manage their own program. The Conservatives are saying that they mentioned doing this in their election campaign, but I honestly did not hear anything about it.

The hon. member for Beauce said that this falls under federal jurisdiction, but justice is a shared jurisdiction. The Criminal Code does fall under federal jurisdiction, but the administration of justice comes under provincial jurisdiction and, as far as I know, the Sûreté du Québec does not fall under federal jurisdiction. So now we should all be able to agree. The NDP did its part to search for a middle ground between the government, which wants to completely abolish the long gun registry, and those who want to keep it, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Such groups suggest, and rightfully so, that the registry is used repeatedly and regularly. Many of my colleagues have made that argument. I know that the police forces in my riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques use it. I know they use it especially frequently in cases where there is a risk of domestic violence. This argument cannot be casually dismissed, which is what government members so often like to do.

The firearms registry should be amended to eliminate the sticking points that we have mentioned, that we continue to mention and that I talked about before question period. Those sticking points can be eliminated. My constituents in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques have said that corrections must be made, including decriminalizing a first offence when someone fails to comply with the registration requirement. There are other sticking points. The NDP is prepared to sit down with the government to eliminate them and ensure that the registry continues in the same direction.

This is an important policy issue. This is not a trivial matter or delay tactic, but rather a fundamental issue concerning Canada's social fabric. That is why we want to work with the government to amend Bill C-19, but we will not be voting in favour of this bill in its current form.

Ending the Long-gun Registry Act
Government Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the hon. member's speech. When we talk about the firearms registry, I think back to the time when I worked at a furniture and appliance store, Ameublements Tanguay. A number of my colleagues were hunters. Some told me they felt as though they were being treated like criminals. I was aware of this type of argument.

We have to remember that at the time of the previous crisis, triggered by this government, with regard to this very registry, Mr. Layton had proposed, both within our caucus and to the government, that there be some sort of arrangement so that people who have to register their firearms could do so in a dignified manner without being labelled as potential criminals. I would like the hon. member to elaborate on this and to reach out to the government so that we can find a solution that suits everyone.