Debates of Oct. 28th, 2011

Ending the Long-gun Registry Act

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question, which touches on something I wanted to expand on. This allows me to do so.

Members have talked about hunters, gun owners, being treated like potential criminals. The hon. members opposite who use that argument are making allegations that make absolutely no sense. We all know gun owners, people who own shotguns, and we do not think of them as potential criminals in any way.

This argument is as misleading as saying that because we need to register our vehicle—vehicle registration is important because, among other things, it gives the police a way of tracking people who commit hit-and-run offences—all drivers are potential criminals. That makes no sense. We know that most firearm owners are law-abiding citizens who will not commit any crime.

However, we have to acknowledge that some crimes are committed by people with shotguns. As I was saying with regard to domestic violence, 88% of the spousal homicides committed with a firearm are committed with a shotgun. Accordingly, to say there is no justification for this registry because the facts are not there to support it is false; the statistics prove it. There is a prevention effort and the registry truly helps police forces do their work.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, 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, NDP, 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.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-19, the ending the long gun registry bill.

It has been interesting to hear the different debates in the House over the last few days. Two years ago my colleague, the member for Portage—Lisgar, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), which was defeated by a mere two votes in the last Parliament, against the express wishes of responsible Canadian gun owners.

Although my medical practice and home are located in the wonderful riding of Simcoe—Grey, I was born and raised in the west, in Fort McMurray in northern Alberta, and Brandon, Manitoba. Both are areas of the country that have given me a deep appreciation of the quality of life in rural Canada, as does my own riding.

My grandfather was an avid duck hunter as well as a farmer. Today he would be heartened to know that our government stands on the side of law-abiding firearms owners, including farmers, duck hunters and rural Canadians in every region of the country.

In my riding of Simcoe—Grey we are fortunate to have many retired seniors from regions all across the country who have made our riding their home. Many of them have moved from northern Ontario and rural regions across the country where hunting, fishing and sport shooting are common practice.

My constituency is also fortunate to have many members of the farming community, whether that be the Beattie family, the McNabb family or Tom Walsh, the mayor of Adjala.

Members of the community use long guns as one of the main tools to keep their property and livestock safe from coyotes, foxes and other vermin.

When we put it all together it means that there is a great number of my constituents who care very passionately about the long gun registry. It is something that I heard about repeatedly as I went door to door in the last election from Creemore to Stayner to Loretto. It continues to be something my constituents take extremely seriously. My office has literally been getting hundreds of letters on the issue.

Make no mistake, my constituents are expecting the government to deliver on its commitment to scrap the long gun registry. That is what we intend to do.

Clearly this is an issue that brings out strong emotions in people. We have heard passionate arguments from members across the floor. While I respect their passion I also point out that many of the facts are simply wrong.

One of the points we have heard from the opposition is that the long gun registry saves lives. We are told it prevents crimes and violence. We are told that having it in place makes people safer.

These statements are not only incorrect but also create a false sense of security where it should not exist. Registering a long gun does not prevent it from being used in a violent manner. I recognized this when I saw injured people come through the emergency department regularly when I worked as a resident at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.

The long gun registry does not prevent crimes from happening. The opposition members have cited many tragic examples of gun crimes that have happened over the past years. The registry did nothing to prevent those crimes. Those crimes took place despite having the long gun registry.

In addition, the registry is not an effective method of gun control. Gun control occurs through the licensing process, which has nothing to do with the long gun registry.

The registry is not an effective tool for law enforcement, to prevent crime or to target criminals. All it does is make criminals out of law-abiding gun owners. Considering its $2 billion cost to date, that is simply not an effective use of taxpayers' dollars.

The long gun registry was one of the key issues of concern to my constituents during the last election. It was an issue upon which the government was clear, that Bill C-19 will ensure that the government ends the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all.

Bill C-19 includes two important components. It will end the requirement that compels law-abiding long gun owners to register their non-restricted firearms, notably long guns. People wishing to acquire a firearm of ammunition will be required to undergo a background check for a criminal record by the issuer of the licence, pass a firearms safety course and comply with all firearms safe storage and transportation requirements.

The bill will allow the government to end the practice of criminalizing Canadian hunters, farmers and sport shooters for engaging in a way of life that is part of what we view as the fabric of this country.

Bill C-19 also ensures that the records of the registry will be destroyed. We have heard members of the opposition suggest in no uncertain terms that the data that was collected for the purpose of the long gun registry should be shared among the provinces so that they can set up their own registry if they so choose.

When our government made the commitment to scrap the long gun registry there was no caveat. We did not promise to rid Canadians of the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry only to facilitate its creation elsewhere. We said we would scrap the registry. We will do that and we will destroy the records.

What has become increasingly clear over the past few days is that should the NDP ever gain power it would have no qualm about resurrecting the long gun registry. I know that runs counter to the wishes of many of the NDP members' constituents in many of the rural ridings they represent. I cannot imagine turning my back on my constituents in the manner that they are now suggesting.

Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to keep focused on the economy and keep our streets and communities safer. While we are working to fulfill our promise to scrap the long gun registry, we are also continuing to work to deliver safer streets, better jobs and a better future for Canadians. We made a clear point in the last campaign to eliminate the long gun registry. A failure to follow through on that clear promise would only undermine the faith Canadians have in the political system, many of whom already have doubts in the willingness of politicians to live up to their commitments. I am proud to be part of a government that respects its promises, delivers on its commitments and stands for the things that matter to Canadians across the country.

That is why I am proud today to stand in support of Bill C-19. To be clear it is wasteful, ineffective and does not prevent crime. It targets Canadians such as my constituents in Simcoe—Grey who are law-abiding long gun owners. It is time for that to end. I hope that hon. members opposite will take it into due consideration and join the government in its effort to scrap the long gun registry once and for all.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, NDP, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, NDP, 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, Conservative, 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, NDP, 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.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech just given by the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey, and I noted two things in particular that I would like my colleague to comment on.

The member is a doctor and she just said that data do not save lives. Her statement is based on everyday data from her traditional job. I do not really understand how she can say that data, including the data found in the registry, cannot save lives. On the contrary, the information does save lives and can be used for prevention.

I would like to tell my colleague about a comment my team heard at La Débrouille, a women's shelter for victims of domestic violence in Rimouski-Neigette. Someone at the shelter said that when an abused woman seeks shelter with them, if she presses charges of course, the police consult the registry to see if weapons could pose a risk in a case of domestic violence. The shelter for abused women said that it sends at least one request a day to the Rimouski-Neigette police. We are talking about at least one call a day from one women's shelter alone, which is located in just one of Canada's 308 ridings.

In light of that comment from the women's shelter, can we not agree that the registry contains information that could be useful across the country, especially in cases of domestic violence?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right about the importance of the registry.

We can debate what we think happens when police officers pull up in front of a place. We can debate what we think all of this means, but let us remember what the leadership of the police community in Canada is saying. Let us also recognize that as of September 30, 2011, the Canadian firearms registry was accessed 17,402 times a day. If even one of those relates to my daughter, then I would rather be on the side of safety and have the information, because the opposite is what we currently have.

We recognize that there are different pressures and viewpoints from around the country on how to view this issue, but we are trying to see it from the victim's point of view, from the community's point of view, from the point of view of the police leadership in Canada. We are trying to put forward the fact that the registry makes a difference and it ought to stay. Women in Canada deserve to have this registry in place, and they deserve to know that their Parliament cares about them and their lives.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, the ending the long-gun registry act. My colleagues have spoken very passionately about the need to end this wasteful and ineffective registry, and I am very glad that the moment has arrived when we are actually able to do so.

Since my election in 2006, I have clearly stated to my constituents that I do not support the long gun registry, because it criminalizes farmers, hunters and target shooters who respect the law, but does nothing to prevent criminals from getting their hands on firearms.

I intend to keep my promise to scrap it, which is more than I can say for the NDP and Liberal MPs from rural ridings, who have long spoken about wanting to end the long gun registry but who vote to continue it whenever they are asked to take a stand on the matter. I will do as I said, as will my Conservative colleagues, and we will abolish this Liberal bureaucratic mess that infringes on the freedoms of Canadians.

As members may know, I represent a rural riding where farming is a way of life. Farmers make a living from the land and they have to protect their livelihoods. That means that a majority of the people who I represent own shotguns or rifles to safeguard their livelihoods.

The thrust of the problem is that these hard-working, law-abiding people who grow food for all Canadians are made to feel like dangerous criminals because of the long gun registry.

This long gun registry's criminalization of farmers, hunters and sport shooters is wrong. How is it possible that imposing needless and extensive red tape on these people is going to stop crime elsewhere? What is the connection between regulating the long gun in the hands of a farmer in my riding and stopping gun crime in Toronto, Montreal or Winnipeg? There is absolutely none, and what is worse is that the resources being used to administer the long gun registry could be used elsewhere to actually fight crime and protect victims.

This issue of the long gun registry demonstrates clearly the fundamental disconnect between opposition MPs and rural Canadians, and Canadians see this disconnect. Canadians elected Conservative members of Parliament on May 2, including, notably, not a single Liberal MP from a rural riding in Ontario. It is not hard to see why. Former Liberal minister of justice Allan Rock, the individual who implemented the long gun registry on behalf of his Liberal government, stated that “Only the police and military should have firearms”. This is a ludicrous statement.

Let us take my situation, for example. As the House knows, I served in the Canadian army for 20 years. During that time, I was trained for, carried and fired guns of all description: pistols, rifles, light machine guns, heavy machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, et cetera. I also trained other soldiers in their safe operation and acted in the capacity of range safety officer on many occasions.

The Liberal position enunciated by Allan Rock would be that despite all of this training, experience and responsibility, now that I am retired, I should have no access to firearms as a hunter or sport shooter and, to make it worse, I should be criminalized by the long gun registry if, for whatever reason, I missed a long gun registration deadline, even if it was not my fault.

This situation must change, and I am very pleased and proud that we now have the opportunity to change it.

I would also like to draw attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Mount Royal to the effect that destroying the long gun registry is synonymous with destroying evidence. Since I am a generous man, I will assume he misspoke. I say this because, interestingly enough, his statement implies that Canadians living in rural areas are criminals about whom evidence must be gathered, whether or not they have committed a crime. We on this side of the House fundamentally disagree with this attitude of the opposition members.

Hunters, farmers and sport shooters are not the people that we need to target if we want to keep our streets and communities free from gun-related violence. We need to target criminals and continue with the practical and concrete measures that the Conservative government has taken in this regard—measures that, I should add, the opposition has rejected. The opposition parties are speaking out against anti-crime measures that work and they are firmly supporting those that do not.

It is clear to the experts that safer streets and communities come from tough, effective laws and from smart crime prevention programming. Our government has taken concrete actions in both of these areas. Whether it is through increasing sentences for crimes involving guns, increasing sentences for gang crime, putting more police on the streets, or improving investments in crime prevention, our government believes in effective crime-fighting measures.

These are the kinds of measures that keep Canadians safe, not increasing bureaucracy, paperwork and red tape on law-abiding Canadians, with the threat of a criminal record if they do not.

Members need not take my word for it. Let me read the following quote: “The federal government has recently introduced a bill to end the long gun registry introduced by the Liberals in the mid-1990s. University of Ottawa criminologist Ron Melchers said the registry has had little to do with the decline in firearm homicides, adding that its absence will also make little difference”.

This is what the experts are saying.

I would also like to address a common inaccuracy used by the NDP and the Liberals. They say we register cars and boats, so why not guns? The fact of the matter is that if I am late filling out the paperwork to register my car, I get a small fine, but if I am late filling out the paperwork to register my shotgun, under the current system I am threatened with being charged, convicted, given a criminal record and perhaps being sent to jail.

Another point about the registration of cars and boats is that we only have to register them if we are going to use them. We can store a car in the backyard or garage and leave it unregistered for as long as we want. It is only once we start using that car that it has to be registered. However, if I store a long gun in a locked storage container in my basement and I do not look at it for 15 years, it has to be registered that whole time, or else I am committing a criminal act under the present long gun registry.

Turning law-abiding sport shooters, farmers and hunters in rural regions into criminals is not an effective means of gun control.

The bill before the House today is, in fact, very simple. It makes it possible for this government to do exactly what it promised—to abolish the expensive and ineffective long gun registry. It is not complicated. Members simply need to vote for or against it. Are they in favour of imposing useless bureaucracy on farmers because of their occupation? Are they in favour of treating hunters like criminals simply because they own firearms?

I know where my constituents stand, and that is why I will be voting to support the ending the long gun registry act. I call on all members opposite to do the same.

They need not listen just to me. The NDP member for Western Arctic said, “They say [the long gun registry] is effective, but effective for what?”

The NDP member for Timmins—James Bay said, “What rural people were concerned with is wasting money tracking down your grandfather's 20-gauge rifle as opposed to putting money into urban gun violence”.

Many similar statements have been made by both NDP and Liberal MPs who are members of the House today. It is my hope that they will reflect on the words that they themselves have spoken, that they will represent the will of their constituents and that when the time comes to vote, they will do the right thing, stand in their place and vote to end the expensive and ineffective long gun registry, which has criminalized responsible and law-abiding Canadians for far too long.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have some unfounded allegations from the government and its stakeholders.

I think we on this side, as do government members, realize that no one in this House thinks hunters and farmers are criminals. What the member just spoke about, the fact that a person becomes a criminal if he does not register, are things that the NDP tried to eliminate in the bill it introduced last year. We tried to eliminate the irritants and we can still do so.

The member who just spoke also indicated that the issue is all black or white, either you are for it or against it, when reality is somewhere in the middle. I would like to know why the member who just spoke will not agree to work with the NDP to create a bill that could eliminate the irritants but would still help police forces do their job. The arguments made by my colleague from Hamilton were very clear: police forces need the registry and use it regularly.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is simple: why does the NDP refuse to work with the government to abolish the long gun registry?

The registry does not work and does not help police officers fight crime. We need to implement measures that will help them. Every time this government tries to do so, the NDP votes against it. When we try to include more money and resources in the budget for police forces, the NDP votes against it.

I do not know if my colleague comes from a rural riding, but if that is the case, I am almost positive that some of the farmers and hunters in his riding would like to see the long gun registry abolished.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, front-line police officers have told me that because there are so many illegal and unregistered firearms, whenever they attend a domestic violence situation, even if there is no record of any firearms being in that resident, they always treat it like there could be one in the residence.

Therefore, previous members' statements are contrary to what the police chiefs have said. Could my hon. colleague verify comments that he may have heard regarding police preparedness training when they are going into a domestic violence situation?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to police officers in my riding and they have expressed exactly the same concern. They treat all situations as high-risk situations. They have no confidence in the gun registry because the gun registry is riddled with errors. The gun registry may show that there is a gun in a home when in fact there is not or it may show that there is no gun in a home, when in fact there is. They have no confidence in it, so they treat all situations as high-risk situations.

I will just take a moment to point out what I see to be quite logical.

When a crime is committed with a long gun that has been registered with the long gun registry, it is quite evident that the crime was not prevented by the registry. The registry has failed in preventing that crime from occurring with a registered long gun.

When a crime is committed with a long gun that has not been registered for whatever reason with the registry, it is quite obvious that, once again, the long gun registry has failed to stop that crime with the non-registered long gun.

I really must put this back to my opposition colleagues. They keep saying how effective the long gun registry is in preventing crime, yet I have given two opposite examples that show that the registry has no role to play in preventing crime. They must answer that question because the long gun registry oppresses law-abiding Canadians and law-abiding Canadians are the ones who register their guns, not the criminals.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to debate Bill C-19. Once again, the Conservatives are showing their narrow ideology in trying to eliminate the Canadian firearms registry. This registry is strongly defended by our police forces and by the majority of Canadians, but this government is choosing once again to ignore reality.

The arguments in favour of this bill are not very convincing, while there are many arguments against the bill that are backed by data and by groups that work in protecting Canadians. Yes, the initial cost of the registry was exorbitant, but it has already been paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Abolishing the registry will not bring back the billions of dollars that have already been spent. According to the RCMP, abolishing the registry would result in direct savings of just a few thousand dollars. That is what the lives of the thousands of people saved by this registry are worth to the Conservatives. If this government claims to want to destroy the registry to save money, then to them, a life is worth nothing. This so-called savings is nothing compared to the unavoidable increase in the cost of police investigations that will result from abolishing this registry. In other words, the Conservatives' main argument for wanting to abolish the registry is simply ridiculous.

The other argument frequently used by the Conservatives for destroying the registry is that it is supposedly ineffective. This argument does not hold water. Police forces, as we have said a number of times today, consult the registry more than 17,000 times a day and want the registry to be maintained. It allows police officers to plan their operations better when they have to intervene with individuals, which contributes to the safety of our police forces. The registry also helps reduce the cost of police investigations. When a long gun is used in a crime, police officers can easily track the firearm and its user.

The registry has also helped save many lives. Even though the majority of murders are committed with handguns, long guns are used in the majority of spousal murders and suicides in which firearms are involved.

Various women's advocacy associations want the registry to be maintained. Year after year, long guns are used in two out of every three murders when firearms are involved. The registry has greatly helped diminish the number of spousal murders. For example, only a third as many spousal murders were committed with long guns in 2007 as in 1996, despite the population growth, which shows the usefulness of the registry.

These long guns wreak even more havoc on Canadian society when we consider suicide. Year after year, close to 60% of firearms suicides are committed with long guns. The registry makes it possible to quickly determine if, for example, a depressed person owns a firearm, which allows authorities to save many lives. The number of firearms suicides dropped from 569 in 2001 to 475 in 2004, proving once again that the registry works.

Since we know that most homicides committed with firearms are suicides, it is of the utmost importance for the government to take action. However, this government is irresponsible and would rather ignore the facts and introduce a bill that will lead to the death of hundreds of Canadians. The survivors of the various massacres that have occurred in Canada also want the registry to be maintained.

On one hand, the Conservatives say that they are on the side of victims of crime but, on the other hand, the Conservatives ignore and turn their backs on those victims when they take a stand that does not correspond with the Conservative ideology. This government is illogical. The Conservatives say that they want to make our streets safer by imposing repressive bills and, yet, they want to allow the free circulation of firearms. This clearly shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Conservative ideology.

In addition, one of the main reasons that there are problems with the registry is that the Conservatives did not enforce the legislation. By giving offenders amnesty since 2006, the government has been sending the message that the laws pertaining to the registry are not important and that the Conservative government supports offenders. As a result, millions of firearms are still not registered. What credibility does this irresponsible government have when it states that the registry is ineffective given that it is directly responsible for the problems with the registry?

The Conservatives have done nothing but sabotage the registry since 2006. This government claims to want to enforce the laws but, instead, it is sending the message that only the laws that are consistent with the Conservative ideology have to be respected. Unfortunately, that is not all. Many provinces, including Quebec, are insisting that the registry be maintained and, yet, the Conservatives are completely ignoring them. This government would rather completely destroy the registry instead of giving the data to the provinces. This shows the contempt that the Conservatives have for our constituents.

Must we remind this government that every Canadian paid for this registry, not just the Conservatives or the Conservative Party?

The people of the provinces that want to keep the firearms registry paid to create it. Are they not entitled to keep what they paid for? The Conservatives, blinded by their regressive ideology, absolutely want to destroy the registry without giving the data to the provinces. These same provinces will have to waste our money to recreate a registry from scratch. The Conservatives are showing their contempt for the provinces, especially Quebec, where 84% of voters voted against the Conservative Party. In fact, a motion was adopted yesterday by the National Assembly of Quebec calling on the federal government to transfer the firearms registry data to the Government of Quebec.

Another argument used by the Conservatives to justify destroying this registry is that it would violate the freedom of firearms users by imposing red tape. That does not stand up. Only two million people have to deal with the registry's red tape out of a total population of almost 35 million Canadians. Why destroy this registry and sacrifice the majority of Canadians to save a very small minority from the administrative irritants of the registry? Should we stop registering vehicles? That is the argument. Yet there are far more users of vehicles than of firearms. Of course, vehicle registration does not go against the Conservative ideology.

It is appalling that this irresponsible government is again trying to destroy the registry. Once again, this government is lying to Canadians to justify its position. Once again, this government is allowing U.S. interests, in this case the powerful gun lobbies, to dictate policy. It is time for this government to start listening to reason and the facts. Abolishing this registry will result in more suicides and more spousal homicides. Abolishing this registry will make police work harder and more dangerous.

This government is showing contempt for Canadians by imposing this ridiculous bill. The Conservatives always lower the bar simply because their position is dictated by regressive ideology.

I will continue to stand up for all Canadians abandoned by this government. I will fiercely oppose this irresponsible bill. I welcome any questions.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's intervention with interest. As he knows, some colleagues in the NDP have introduced a bill to actually fix some of the problems with the registry because it would be foolish to say that it is perfect. Everything can stand to improve.

I know my colleague will agree with me that the Conservatives are playing divisive politics with this bill. They are pitting urban against rural. They are pitting Canadians against one another and are refusing to compromise on anything.

Would the member be willing to consider amendments, or a different bill or ways in which we could actually improve the registry? Or is this just something that he and his party are blindly hoping to save at all costs?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I spoke about the Conservatives' ideology and how they cannot help themselves, but, once again, it is politics of division. In this case, we see men versus women. It is a clear case of where the government wants to create divisions between men and women. It did it with the poor against the rich, the middle-class and the lower-class, the religious and non-religious and urban and rural. It is a continuous process.

Hopefully the bill will not pass second reading but, if it does, I hope that in committee we will be able to put forward some amendments and that the Conservative government will be willing to acknowledge that some bills need to be amended and that it will work with members from both the NDP and Liberal Parties to make this a proper bill. If it does not want to listen to members of Parliament, it can always listen to members from some of the provincial legislatures, like the National Assembly of Quebec that just passed a motion yesterday saying that it supports the gun registry.