Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wish to thank the various witnesses.
I also wish to point out to everyone that this is the last group of witnesses in this process, which I liken to a high-speed train. We have had five short sessions. In fact, four, because the next session will be for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. This bill is very divisive and gives rise to as many arguments from all sides. To me, this is particularly absurd and absolutely abominable.
As one of the representatives of the Fédération des femmes du Québec and the Fédération des ressources d'hébergement pour femmes violentées et en difficulté du Québec said, we're at the dawn of a very dark period. This is the time of year when we recall sad events. We recall the extent to which violence against women and girls is still very much present in our society. I confess that this upsets me deeply.
I've just been to a press conference given by the YWCA, which was launching its Rose Campaign, aimed at ending violence against women. You're going to see tons of politicians wearing beautiful badges and white ribbons.
What concrete response can we give to women who are asking that the registry be kept, without it hurting anyone? In any case, no one has proved to me, in four sessions, that someone has died because of the registry. Whereas, conversely, we can have our suspicions but we can't be sure. I always take what looks like the surest option over the least sure.
As you put it earlier, we're weighing bureaucratic hassle against the saving of lives. It seems to me -- you'll forgive my English -- it's a no-brainer.
So you're going to see politicians wearing ribbons in their buttonholes. And what are we doing? We're getting rid of the registry. That's what we're telling the women of Canada, the women of Quebec, the victims' associations. We use them, though, to support other bills, like Bill. C-10. This step is absolutely unbelievable in its inconsistency.
There also seems to be a lack of understanding. They're trying to divide people who tell us it's not perfect. I agree with you. The registry is not perfect. First, you, the Conservatives, imposed a moratorium. Of course it's not up-to-date. It's not up-to-date because you imposed a moratorium five years ago. For five years, no data have been gathered. So it's pretty obvious that it's not up-to-date.
If an argument can't be used in law, we say that no one can plead his own turpitude. But this is what they are doing. They give us the argument that the registry isn't up-to-date. But this is something that can be corrected and improved. If there are mistakes because a postal code isn't right, that can be fixed.
Several of our police officers have come here to tell us repeatedly that it's dangerous to rely on the registry. Please, I hope there's not a police officer who's thick enough to consult a registry that hasn't been brought up-to-date for five years, and then go to someone's home thinking that there's only one firearm there. Come on! I don't think anyone would do something like that. I imagine that our police officers are a lot more professional than that.
The registry is a tool. If the registry tells us there are three firearms, it's better than nothing at all.
Yet it still looks to me as though bureaucratic hassle is being weighed against saving lives. I can't get over it. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police came here to tell us that it's a tool. Nobody said it was the only tool, but it's a tool.
Mr. Marchand, of the Association québécoise de prévention du suicide, told us and the statistics demonstrate it. No one can contradict it. No one can be 100% sure, on either one side or the other. But shouldn't we be in favour of life, rather than just falling in with the other side? That's the crux of the debate, to my mind. Unfortunately, our Conservative friends have used the debate to try and be divisive. I'm not against hunters. I eat meat and I like it, darn it!
If a hunter registers his firearm and we don't turn him into a criminal, that should solve the problem, it seems to me. If I sort out the things that aren't working in the registry, it seems to me that that will solve the problem.
Some survivors from the École polytechnique were here earlier. The people from the Fédération des femmes du Québec tell us that the registry is important, it helps and the statistics demonstrate it -- it has brought down the rate.
Perhaps it is not entirely due to the registry. However, personally speaking, if it were, I would not want to have that on my conscience. It is as simple as that. I am sorry but perhaps it is not something that bothers you but it does me. I should have a whole host of questions to put to you but I am starting to get a little tired of this being spun as an attempt to criminalize hunters. This is patently false.
We are endeavouring to get a proper handle on the issue. Section 11 is obviously a problem area. You have raised the issue yourself. There have been attempts to confuse the issue of firearms licenses with that of the purchase of a registered firearm. Come on! Imagine that I am a hunter with a license who wants to give up hunting. I need to make some money. So, I decide to sell my firearm to Mr. Rutledge on eBay without asking him to produce any documentation. How can you prove that I checked whether he could lawfully acquire the firearm once it is no longer registered? Quite simply, you cannot.
This legislation has shortcomings and the Government does not even realize. We are going relive what we went through with C-10 all over again. My colleagues and I will all work like dogs to table sensible amendments based on the solutions proposed by Quebec, which of course, wishes to recover the information held in the registry. But no, the Government is going to throw it all out! For goodness sake! We should leave the registry alone. It saves lives! We will table amendments and they will raise their hands like little robots to defeat them all. What a shame.