Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's good to be a member of the committee, and to be here today. I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak to the motion brought forward by Mr. Ménard. I'll make a couple of comments.
First, I had the opportunity to serve on the Durham regional police services board for a period of time, so I got to see this particular registry in action as opposed to just talking about it in the abstract. Being there at the services board, seeing how it was used on a day-to-day basis, having an opportunity to talk with officers and with our chief at that time and the new chief, about this particular program, I got to see that it does in fact work.
Mrs. Kadis raised a number of different statistics that I think are worth mentioning. It's important to know that the vast majority of our police chiefs do support this. We have not only anecdotal evidence but real evidence that it is working on the ground and providing an important service.
I know that certain people say, “Guns don't kill people, people kill people”, but the reality is that.... Two things are worth noting here. One is that you're three times more likely to die of a gunshot wound than you are of a knife wound, and killing somebody with a knife requires an enormous amount of additional mens rea, if you will, an additional amount of intent. You have to chase somebody down and stab them repeatedly as opposed to what it takes with just a gun, whether it's a long arm or a handgun. That's not to say ban them entirely, but they are clearly different types of things.
Something that I do think requires oversight...and I think the registry has proven itself, not only whether or not it's enforcing prohibition orders or dealing with domestic violence situations, as has been referenced, but in a number of other areas as well. Clearly there were issues with the program. I had an opportunity to sit on the public accounts committee during the last term. There's no doubt that particularly before 2002 there were serious issues with the program. I think it would be foolhardy to try to say there weren't. But as the Auditor General said--and I had an opportunity to question her on this in the public accounts committee several weeks back--those problems have largely been rectified. She has some issues with respect to having a more clearly defined mandate, I think, and a couple of other issues, but certainly there isn't anything in there that would warrant cancellation of the program.
So what do we gain by cancelling this particular program? Well, we gain a very nominal sum of money by anybody's standards. It's disputed whether or not it's $10 million, or less, but certainly in the context of our budget it's extremely small.
But what do we lose? Well, we lose a vital resource for our police services and something that is important in providing public safety. Certainly that doesn't add up. It doesn't make any sense. I don't think it makes sense to use pre-2002 arguments to try to kill something today that provides a useful service and something that is important.
I would say that I hope it's recognized that we are in a minority government. I'm hoping that this motion today by Mr. Ménard will carry, and that, if it does carry, the will of this Parliament will be heard on this particular issue. I do believe--ardently, and of course it'll be tested--that most parliamentarians support this particular measure, and that it would be a mistake to cancel it.
I think we need to look at it in its current context, at what it's achieving, and really ask ourselves what we would be saving in real terms if we were to kill it.