Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to second the motion, and I would like to further highlight the actual benefits of having the long gun component in the registry.
As mentioned by Monsieur Ménard, 71% of spousal homicide is done with long guns. This is very compelling information that cannot be ignored. We mustn't abandon the women who are the victims, largely, in cases of domestic violence. For us to take this step in our Parliament —and it hasn't gone through Parliament, as has been referenced—would be a step backward in our overall collective objective of achieving public safety for Canadians.
When the law and order discussions have taken place--and there have been a lot of them lately in Parliament, in legislation coming before us and being tabled--this flies in the face of what I'm hearing from the government presently. It's at odds, clearly, as has been stated by Armand La Barge, president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. It was my pleasure and privilege to work with him on occasion in my vicinity, and now, in his newer capacity, he has definitely authorized me to say that he feels quite strongly that this component must be retained. So I've had a lot of extensive discussions.
Finance has been used as a rationale, at least as far as everything we have heard to date, as to why this is being deleted or taken out. Yet, on this very committee, we heard recently that the program is now being managed reasonably well since 2002, and that the actual amount of savings would not be significant by anyone's standard.
There have been different numbers bandied about. At one committee meeting recently, it was stated that $10 million was in fact not going to be saved from the gun registry, as had been stated to us previously. There's been a lot of misinformation.
I feel very strongly that if we do not stand up for this, we will be collectively undermining our capacity to provide our law enforcement with the maximum tools to ensure the maximum safety that we can afford to Canadians. For anyone to say, and it's been stated a lot of times here and elsewhere, that the information isn't that reliable, that the information hasn't been used to a great extent.... It is exactly not true. It is not factual. It is a mistake and it is improper for anyone to say that it's not being used and used well. Apparently, the access is not 5,000 hits a day but somewhere upwards of 6,500.
Again, it's been stated in this committee that sometimes it wasn't for the gun registry. That was at the last meeting, I believe. This is not the information coming from our chiefs of police, and if we don't listen to them, then who are we listening to? If we go with a new regime, we will not know if there are five or ten long gun rifles in someone's home when we approach it. It is not enough to say, “We know there are guns.” Our police need to know, the best they can, to the best of their knowledge, exactly what's taking place in a home. They need to be empowered; otherwise, they are at a great disadvantage.
As I started saying initially, this would be a message-sending to women when we have a problem with domestic violence, here and elsewhere, that we need to tackle even more seriously. Many efforts have been made, but it's not enough. We all hear of very terrible cases repetitively, too many times, too many for us to hear, and too many to actually happen. If we know that 71% of spousal homicides are done with these long guns, I ask anyone to justify taking this component out of it. Anyone who supports that is saying that we're not doing everything we can to stop, if possible, or greatly reduce, domestic violence against women in particular.
So I believe the facts are there, and I support this motion. I feel that if we go in the other direction, time will prove that it was faulty thinking and faulty direction
We also heard that a great deal of the difficulties and the cost overruns were attributed, according to the Auditor General and Mr. Baker, directly to the opposition of the gun lobby; that was a question that I posed to her. That delayed legislation, as we well know, and led to a lot of cost overruns and problems.
So we have a significant decision to make here, as a public safety committee. We have an opportunity to avert what I believe would be a major error on Parliament's part if we went forward in this direction and deleted this component of the long gun.
As a committee, this is our opportunity--we haven't had an opportunity, I agree with Monsieur Ménard--to ensure that we do not contribute to reducing or undermining the safety of Canadians.
Thank you.