Brent Rathgeber

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to members of the House.

The registry represents legislators' and governments' overestimation of their ability to solve and prevent human frailties. There are some things that governments cannot do. Tragedies, such as the one at École Polytechnique, or the one a decade later at Dawson College, are those types of events that no amount of registration, law or legislative registry would necessarily prevent.

The long gun registry was founded on an incorrect premise. The premise is quite simple, and we have heard about it today from members on this side of the House: criminals would register their guns. We know that that is a faulty premise. They would not. These are individuals who are involved in gun violence and tragic circumstances, who flaunt society's norms. They flaunt society's values, and they certainly flaunt society's laws. They are not the type to register their firearms.

Licensing is of course quite different from registration. Nothing in Bill C-19, or its predecessor legislation, the private member's bill in the last Parliament that was sponsored by the member for Portage--Lisgar and almost passed, would affect the licensing mechanism. Licensing is important because it deals with the individual. It is the individual who is going to have ownership of that firearm, or the ammunition to use the firearm. That person is going to have to satisfy the authorities that he or she is competent and has taken the requisite firearms safety course. Criminal record checks are done. If they come back negative, then the individual is entitled to a licence. The licensing mechanism has value. The registration mechanism has no value.

I have heard members on the other side of the House frequently say we register vehicles and our dogs, but we are not going to register our firearms. What they ignore is a clear line of constitutional demarcation between the federal government's responsibility and the responsibility of the provinces with respect to property and civil rights. As we know, property and civil rights were specifically given to the provinces under the British North America Act and now the Constitution Act. Dog and cat licensing has been further delegated to the municipalities. The federal government can only have a registry if there is some valid criminal purpose. We do have registries. We have a sex offender registry. We have a DNA databank. These are registries that have a valid criminal purpose.

I submit to all members of the House that valid criminal purpose is absent in the long gun registry. There is no criminal purpose. Therefore, if a registry of long guns were to be maintained it would have to be maintained by the provinces under their provincial jurisdiction, under section 92 of British North American Act.

As some members know, I sit on the public safety committee. I sat on it in the last Parliament. We heard evidence from both sides of this debate. There are people who truly believe that this registry has merit. We heard from groups, police officers and experts on both sides of this debate. I submit that there is no evidence that this registry has ever prevented a single crime or that it has ever saved a single life. In fact, the evidence is quite the opposite. Proponents of the long gun registry sometimes cite the Mayerthorpe tragedy to somehow support their contention that the long gun registry has merit. I find that perplexing. On that day in March 2005, four members of the RCMP tragically died at the hands of James Roszko, a madman who flaunted all of society's laws. Tragically, he murdered four brave Mounties before taking his own life.

Proponents of the long gun registry cite the fact that there were two accomplices who were subsequently convicted of aiding and abetting that offence, admittedly through registration. They see that somehow as a success. It is not. It is a failure. Four Mounties died.

Police officers cannot and do not rely on the long gun registry in their every day service. We heard of a situation in, I think, 2006 in Laval, Quebec, where a police officer responding to a domestic incident did a long gun registry search, which came back negative. As a result she did not call for backup and went in to deal with the disturbance and was shot. It was to her own peril that the police officer relied on the defective and inaccurate information in the registry.

There is no evidence that a single life has been saved or a single crime stopped by this ill-conceived concept brought in by a previous government.

I live in the city of Edmonton, which held the sad and tragic distinction last year of having 47 murders, the most in Canada. However, not a single one was committed with a long gun. The weapon of choice in Edmonton is the knife, and more victims were stabbed than by any other mode of homicide. In my city there is no correlation between violent crime and long guns.

The last day before our Christmas break there was a tragic incident in southern Alberta, a triple homicide followed by a suicide at Claresholm near the city of Lethbridge. A fourth individual was seriously injured. There were three murders, one attempted murder and a suicide. We found out that the weapons used in that incident were registered.

When murders occur, whether or not the guns involved are registered, society and legislatures and this type of registration mechanism are ill-equipped and cannot prevent these types of tragedies. Individuals use registered weapons to cause tragic incidents. In a city like Edmonton, knives and hand guns are the predominant weapon for homicides.

Therefore, the registry does not prevent crime. Those who believe otherwise are well-intentioned but their feelings and their theories are not borne out by the evidence. It is time that we put this registration mechanism to bed and reallocate the resources toward real law enforcement and to real purpose and activities that can prevent crime.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise for the first time in 2012 to contribute, hopefully for the last time, to this debate concerning the non-merits of the long gun registry.

I come from Alberta. Albertans have a particular wisdom, I would suggest, when it comes to the virtue both of long guns and their need with respect to industry. My friend, the member for Red Deer, gave a great speech regarding his experience growing up in rural Alberta. My experience is somewhat different, but I certainly share those sentiments.

When I was home for the Christmas break, a number of my constituents and other individuals I met were quite adamant that the time for the long gun registry had long passed and it was time that we got on with the work of having it finally abolished because of its lack of usefulness and merit.

I would suggest to members of this House that the long gun registry, from its inception, represents all that is wrong with the modern nanny state. The long gun registry, although conceived out of a very tragic incident in Montreal, was ill-conceived from the beginning. It was premised on government's and legislators' overestimation of their ability to solve any wrongs in society. It was premised that through legislation and through this--

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2012]

With respect to salaries at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), how many employees at the CBC earn more than $100,000.00, and what are their names and salaries?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2012]

With respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) bureaus, what is the itemized list of expenses for hospitality, food, drink, hotels and transportation for the CBC bureaus in (i) Paris, (ii) London, (iii) Washington, (iv) Rome?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2012]

With respect to contracts and costs associated with the development or acquisition of programming at or by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): (a) how much does CBC pay Rick Mercer or any company of which he is the proprietor; (b) did the CBC hold an open tender for a political satire show for the Mercer Report or was the contract untendered; (c) how much did the CBC spend on the rights for (i) Wheel of Fortune, (ii) Jeopardy, (iii) American movies; (d) what contracts has the CBC signed with Zaibe Shaikh or Governor Films in the last five years, if any, (i) for how much money (individually and in total), (ii) what was provided in return, (iii) which of these contracts were put out for open competition and which were not; and (e) how many untendered contracts has the CBC signed in the last five years, and, if it has signed any such contract, (i) with whom, (ii) for how much money (individually and in total), (iii) what did the CBC get for each of these contracts?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) and its employment of Peter Mansbridge, George Strombolopolous, and Hubert T. Lacroix: (a) what do the CBC’s employment agreements with each of these individuals provide each individual in terms of (i) salary, (ii) vehicle allowance or provision of car and/or driver, (iii) expense account for food, drink, alcohol and hospitality, (iv) out-of-town accommodations for the individual; (b) in each of the years between 2000 and 2011, how much did each of these individuals expense to the CBC for (i) food, (ii) travel, (iii) hotels, (iv) hospitality, (v) drink, (vi) vehicle use; (c) what were the itemized amounts and descriptions of each individual’s individual expenses as identified in the answers to (b); and (d) if the CBC provides any of these individuals with a vehicle for his use, as identified in the answers to (a)(ii), broken down by individual, (i) what is the model and make of the car, (ii) how much does this benefit cost the CBC on an annual basis?

[Petitions, December 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and present a petition signed by 110 individuals mostly, but not exclusively, from Edmonton—St. Albert calling upon the House to pass Bill C-311, the private member's bill sponsored by the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla. If passed, this bill would encourage job growth in the wine industry and support domestic wine and Canadian tourism.

[Fair Representation Act, December 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, it is not my electoral district that has 200,000 members. I represent a riding that is admittedly larger than the average. I was referring to the member for Brampton West. Certainly my riding is not as ethnically diverse as a riding that has 51% new Canadians, as my friend from Brampton West represents.

With respect to the member's question, the issue is not only one of cost. I have a difficult time accepting the cost defence of maintaining the House at its current size. We see all over the Middle East and all over the world that citizens are clamouring for democracy. People are clamouring for the right to vote in free elections.

In Canada we have free elections, but the weight of each constituent is disproportionate, depending on whether the constituent lives for example in the GTA or in northern Ontario. To give some sense of parity or some sense of relative equality to the weight of the individual citizens to maintain democratic equality, the bill increases the number of seats for faster growing provinces without getting into the very acrimonious and divisive debate of taking seats away from certain provinces and giving them to under-represented provinces such as mine.

[Fair Representation Act, December 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is a functioning Parliament because we are debating right now. I hear what the hon. member says and I disagree with what he says. That is a debate.

There has been consultation. I know for a fact that the premier of Alberta supports the bill for many reasons, not the least of which is that it will give her province six additional seats.

I have consulted members of my constituency. They support the bill because there has been a long-standing feeling in Alberta that Alberta lacked representation in this House. With a formula that will provide six additional seats, they do support it.

I cannot speak for the member's constituents in Winnipeg, I can only speak for my constituents in Alberta. There have been consultations. This is a good bill. The member should support it.

[Fair Representation Act, December 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to rise and add a few additional comments on this important piece of legislation, Bill C-20, dealing with fair representation.

It is an interesting debate. Setting the number of seats and dividing those seats among Canada's 10 provinces and 3 territories is one of the most complicated and controversial things that the House is called upon to do. It is a big task, and I am glad that the members generally, and certainly the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, are up to the task.

The purpose of the bill is to provide greater representation for faster growing provinces. I, being a member of Parliament from Alberta, represent one of those provinces. Of course I support the concept of this bill. Although it does not prescribe a number of seats, it would allow for more seats for the faster growing provinces, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. That is appropriate.

The bill attempts to balance that principle with two additional principles. One is to maintain the number of seats for slower growing provinces and the other is to maintain the proportional representation of Quebec according to the population, or at least within a very small margin of error. Assuming the bill is passed, when the formula is applied to the most recent census, the net result will be that Ontario will receive 15 additional seats, British Columbia will receive six additional seats, and my province of Alberta will receive six additional seats.

I think it is important that those provinces receive greater representation in the House. As we have heard, there are members in the House who currently represent in excess of 200,000 people. I understand the member for Brampton West falls into that category, and the member for Mississauga--Erindale is close to that number.

Worse than just the number of citizens that it is an honour to represent, the ethnic diversity of some of those densely populated ridings in the GTA, where in some situations 50% of the population are ethnic Canadians, puts further demands on members and their staff. As all members know from the individual casework that we do in our riding offices, immigration casework takes up the bulk of what we do. If a member represents 200,000 constituents and over 50% of those are not natural-born Canadians or ethnic Canadians, that will place exceptional demands on a member's time and on the resources of a member's staff and caseworkers.

Canada has become a densely populated country in certain regions, although we are very sparsely populated in the north and in some places in the west. The result of those democratic factors is that 61% of Canadians are currently mathematically under-represented in the House and Canada's visible minorities are particularly under-represented. Worse, the trend is continuing. It is to alleviate some of these discrepancies that Bill C-20 sets out a formula to allow faster growing provinces, such as Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, additional seats.

I just want to mention briefly the issue with respect to my province, Alberta. Alberta has in excess of three million people, approximately 11% of the population, but it has only a little over 9% of the seats in the House of Commons. Therefore, the proportion of relative voting weight of one of my constituents is .92 of the mean. If that .92 is weighted against provinces that are overrepresented, of course the mathematical significance increases. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Although we need to grant more seats to the densely populated regions of our country and the fastest growing provinces, there has to be some accommodation for slower growing provinces and provinces where the population may even be declining. Canada is a diverse country. We have densely populated regions close to the 49th parallel and we have very sparsely populated regions the further we get from our southern border.

There has to be some accommodation. It is difficult to represent a large region such as the Peace River electoral district just northwest of my riding of Edmonton--St. Albert. Members of Parliament from Yukon and the Northwest Territories represent vast tracts of land with very few people. Representing that much area presents a challenge in and of itself. We will never achieve perfect representation by population no matter how a laudable goal that would be. There has to be some compromise, but that compromise has to be weighed against international standards and international norms for democratic developed countries.

It is significant to note that when compared to western European countries and our neighbours to the south, Canada is failing with respect to its deviations. Canada has the greatest deviations from average counts of citizens in its ridings compared to Switzerland, Germany, Australia and the United States. What is worse, these deviations are getting larger.

Some members will suggest that in democracies such as the United States, members of both the house of representatives and the senate represent more individuals than we do here in the House. However, the reality is that the deviation between the small electoral districts and the larger electoral districts is much larger in Canada than it is in the United States.

It is those deviations that this legislation is attempting to remedy. It would bring us closer to parity, although, as I said, true parity will never be realized in a country as unique as Canada. Canada is so large but has a relatively sparse population, and relatively dense populations in certain areas.

The situation seriously undermines the principle that all citizens should have an equal say in choosing their government. This country was based on the principle of representation by population within limits. If we checked debates concerning the fathers of Confederation and the conferences that led up to Confederation, we would find that it was not only desirable but it was deemed a prerequisite for the formation of Canada that representation by population be given priority in this House. To balance that, the upper chamber, the Senate, the appointed chamber and hopefully not forever appointed chamber, was premised more upon regional representation as opposed to pure representation by population.

Canada is an advanced democracy. We saw in the spring, in the Arab world primarily, in countries like Egypt, Syria and Libya, citizens advocating for, fighting for, and sadly sometimes dying for, the right to participate in democratic elections and choose who should represent them in the affairs of government and the affairs of state.

We are fortunate to live in a country where we do have a functioning Parliament. We have responsible government. The government is responsible to the House. The House of Commons needs to pay attention to the principles of equality, the concept that every Canadian ought to have more or less equal say as to the composition of the House. Every Canadian ought to have the assurance that his or her vote counts equally and that his or her member will have a constituency that is not so expansive and not so large that the member lacks the ability to represent each constituent.

I would ask all hon. members to support Bill C-20 at third reading. It is not a perfect bill. It is a difficult compromise. The bill would achieve three principles that we must adhere to: representation by population, protecting slower growing provinces, and maintaining the relative proportion of seats in the House for the province of Quebec.