Martin Cauchon

[Firearms Registry, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the gun control program, which is a very important part when we are talking about public safety. One more time, we are not talking about $1 billion. Second, we have never said, and the Auditor General as well has never said, that money has been wasted. We have to talk about an investment in a very good program. We are starting to see the benefits of that program, and as we have said in the past, we will keep proceeding with that fantastic public safety tool.

[Firearms Registry, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that when we are talking about the money invested in the gun control program we are not talking about a waste of money. We have built a good program and we, as well as Canadian society, are starting to see the benefits of the program. When we talk about the technology is in place, we have a good tool for public safety that we are using as a government and that police forces are using in order to make sure that we will keeping building a safe society.

With regard to the question of privacy, of course there is a question involved there and it is not the first--

[Official Languages, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this very important question.

It will be recalled that a Federal Court decision required the government to modify the agreement on contraventions with Ontario, in order to ensure that the quasi constitutional linguistic rights set out in sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code and Part IV of the Official Languages Act were reflected and the agreement adjusted accordingly.

I would simply like to report to the House that earlier this week, an official agreement was reached with the Government of Ontario to ensure that we can move forward with the required elements of this Federal Court decision.

[Divorce Act, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, essentially the hon. member is referring to what we call the notion of maximum contact. That notion is to be found in the existing bill.

To be more precise, we have decided, when we talk about the best interests of the child, to develop a list of criteria to be used by the judge and both parties if they decide not to proceed in court. That list is an exhaustive list, and the criteria just referred to is found on that list.

[Divorce Act, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about family law, we have to understand that one of the most important principles, if not the most important principle which is to be seen in the existing bill, is the best interest of the child.

If we look at our reform, there are essentially three pillars that are very important in order to put in place our philosophy: the question of the social programs that are developed by provinces to which we are contributing as well; the question of the unified family court, which is a very important component; and the legislative modifications that are very important in talking about the--

[Divorce Act, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member essentially referred to the notion of shared parenting that was discussed yesterday at committee.

We said that we had decided to move away from that notion of shared parenting because essentially it had been proven, based on some experiences, that shared parenting was referring essentially to a sort of legal presumption. When I refer to experiences, I am referring to a country like Australia, for example. In Canada we have decided to proceed with the notion of parental responsibilities.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the act the member is referring to is essentially one developed Canada-wide which draws a great deal from the principles and philosophy that have been in place in Quebec for many years.

I would just like to say that discussions were held last year within the framework of a federal-provincial conference. Subsequently, we deferred the implementation date to April 1 of this year, in order to make sure that all provinces could receive the necessary training. Now we are at that point, and we are prepared to proceed with enforcement of the act.

[Divorce Act, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that very important question. Essentially he is talking about Bill C-22, the Divorce Act, which has passed second reading in the House.

We put in place a brand new philosophy. We want to ensure that the system is less adversarial. We will change the notion of custody and access moving toward what we call parental responsibility. We want to ensure that we will be using more mediation.

[Firearms Registry, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. That opposition party does not believe in gun control. However I would like to refer to a press release from the member for Yorkton—Melville dated January 25, 1995. He said:

Gun controls will not improve public safety, it will put the public at more risk. Gun controls will not reduce violent crime, it will increase violence. Gun controls will not save lives, it will cost lives.

When we see such nonsense, how could they understand common sense?

[Firearms Registry, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, licensing and registration are two important components of gun control. We do it here. We as well are not the only country to do it.

If we look at Germany, for example, it has exactly the very same system. Having said that, when we look at the results we have obtained through licensing and registration, I guess it tells a lot about what we want to do in terms of public safety.

In terms of cost, over a seven year period of time, it has been $688 million for Canadians. We are heading in the right direction. It is a good and sound policy and we will keep talking about gun control and public safety.