Brent Rathgeber

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in my place and contribute to the debate on Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, also known as the ending the long-gun registry act.

Several members on this side of the House have opened their interventions by talking about their personal history with respect to firearms, and I think I ought to do the same.

I do not own any firearms. I can count on one hand the number of times I have used a firearm, and I can state for the record that I do not even really like firearms. For me, this is not an issue about firearms. This is an issue about liberty. It is about individual liberty and it is an issue concerning the role of the state and, I would suggest, the tendency over the last two or three decades of the state encroaching upon the rights of law-abiding citizens and the individual liberties of Canadians. That is the perspective and the lens on which I assess the merits and the values of the long gun registry that was set up in the mid-1990s by a previous government.

As a libertarian, I must concede that we compromise on our libertarian values every day of the week. For example, when I arrived here on Parliament Hill this morning in a motor vehicle, we need to respect certain rules of the road. We can only drive on the right-hand side. We must observe speed limits and traffic control devices, both for our own individual safety and, obviously, for the safety of other pedestrians and other operators of vehicles. I accept that.

For any law, regulation, registration or registry to be valid and legitimate, it must to pass three tests and those tests are the following: first, it must serve a valid purpose; second, it must be effective in achieving that purpose; and third, it must do so in a cost-effective manner. I would submit to members of the House that the long gun registry fails on at least two out of those three tests.

Is there a valid purpose? I suspect there actually is. The long gun registry was implemented in response to a very tragic event at École Polytechnique in Montreal. It was a tragic incident, one of the black marks in Canadian history, and there was considerable political pressure to do something to protect women and citizens generally against the violence of firearms.

I think the response of the government of the day was legitimate. I do not actually share the view of some of the members on this side of the House that the purpose of the bill was to criminalize hunters and farmers. I do not think that was the purpose. That is what happened, but I do not think that was the purpose. I will give the former government the benefit of the doubt that it actually was a legitimate purpose, although not well thought out.

The second test concerns whether the registry or the legislation was effective in achieving its purpose? I say, unequivocally, that it was not and it was not from the beginning because it was not thought out properly.

Members of the House, such as the member for Prince George—Peace River, who has been here since the infancy of the long gun registry, predicted back then and maintains to this day that we cannot effectively control violence with guns by targeting lawful, law-abiding gun owners.

That is consistent with any matter of policing. I live in the city of Edmonton where there has been over 40 murders this year and, incidentally, not one by a long gun. The weapon of choice most frequently used for murder in Edmonton is a knife, but that is a story for another day.

The police use their resources to police neighbourhoods and parts of Edmonton where they know crime occurs with greater prevalence and where criminals elements are known to exist. They do not routinely and frequently patrol the neighbourhoods where law-abiding citizens are known to exist.

When the authors of the registry decided that they would force legitimate gun owners, such as sportsmen, hunters and trappers, to register their weapons, they went after the wrong people. As was predicted and what should have been known and which was argued, if we check the Debates on Bill C-68, it was known then as it is now that criminals simply do not register their weapons. The program was ill-conceived, ill-thought out and, in fact, has not been effective in reducing crime.

I serve on the public safety committee. I served on the public safety committee in the last Parliament when the private member's bill sponsored by the member for Portage—Lisgar was before our committee. I had the opportunity of examining evidence, in some detail, from the then-president of the Canadian Police Association, Mr. Charles Momy. Mr. Momy came to the committee to tell us that abolishing the long gun registry would be a huge mistake, that it was a critical tool in the arsenal of the police toolkit. However, when pushed on that issue, he admitted to me that the police could not and do not rely on the long gun registry.

I will tell the House why he admitted that. When police respond to an incident, they do a long gun registry search. If the registry shows that there are no registered weapons at the residence, we asked Mr. Momy if the police could safely assume there are no weapons? His answer was, “Of course not”. They have to go in hoping for the best but being prepared for the worst. The police do not rely on it when it shows there are no weapons registered at that residence.

I asked him a second hypothetical question. What happens if the long gun registry search shows there are in fact two weapons at that residence and the police go in, find the two weapons and take them out of play, does that mean they now have a safe crime scene? Can the police assume there is not a third or fourth weapon? His answer was. “Of course not. You always have to assume that there are additional hazards, additional perils at that scene, notwithstanding that the registry said there were two weapons and two weapons were found”.

We have two examples, one where there was a negative result from a registry search and one where there was a positive result, and in neither circumstance did the police actually rely on the data.

We know that the police do not and cannot rely on the long gun registry. We know that it does nothing to deter crime under the very simple premise that criminals do not register their weapons.

The third part of my test regarding whether there is an appropriate legislative or registration response to a problem is the cost-effectiveness. Members will recall that the original estimate for Bill C-68, the long gun registry, was $2 million. Now, that does not sound like a large sum of money to promote a legitimate goal, as I identified, which was to reduce violence, to reduce violence against women and reduce gun violence generally.

As we know, $2 million was a gross underestimate of the actual cost. Was the estimate out by a margin of 10 or a margin of 100? No. It was out by a margin of 1,000. This long gun registry has cost taxpayers $2 billion. It has done nothing and can do nothing to deter crime or prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals. Although chiefs of police like to say that they are in favour of the long gun registry, when pushed and asked if, in a world of finer resources, they would prefer more boots on the ground or a long gun registry, they always answer that they would prefer resources for something other than a long gun registry.

On that test, the long gun registry fails. It is not an effective response to a legitimate goal. It is not a cost-effective response to a legitimate goal.

I am proud to stand in this House and be part of a Conservative government that will actually put an end to what was a train wreck from the beginning. I think the liberty of law-abiding farmers, hunters, fishermen, trappers and others will be preserved. I encourage all members to vote in favour of Bill C-19.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for his comments, but I am shocked and dismayed that he would cite Mayerthorpe as an example of the success of the long gun registry. He challenged members on this side of the House to talk about Mayerthorpe, and I am going to talk about it.

Mayerthorpe is an example of the failure of the long gun registry, because four brave Mounties died that day and the long gun registry did nothing to protect them. In testimony to the public safety committee when the private member's bill from the member for Portage—Lisgar was before the committee, police officers admitted to me that because the long gun registry is so inherently inaccurate, they cannot rely on it when they go into a situation, and it is inaccurate because criminals such as Mr. Roszko do not register their guns.

How can the member stand up and cite Mayerthorpe as a success of the long gun registry when four brave Mounties died that day?

[Supreme Court Candidates, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, legal history will be made this afternoon. Two exemplary jurists, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis and Justice Michael Moldaver, will appear before a parliamentary committee to answer questions from members of Parliament concerning their abilities to serve on our country's highest court. This meeting marks the completion of an extensive consultative process to find the most qualified candidates and capable jurists to join the Supreme Court of Canada.

I was honoured to be chosen from among my caucus colleagues to serve as one of five members of the Supreme Court selection panel. The committee spent more than two months reviewing judgments by the prospective candidates and consulting prominent members of Ontario's legal community in order to come up with a short list. In the end, the panel's decision was unanimous. I believe both candidates are exceptional choices to fill the Supreme Court vacancies and will uphold the world-class reputation and historic legacy of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Of all my parliamentary duties, I consider having had input into the composition of the Supreme Court to have been the most interesting and most purposeful of my tasks.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I heard it loud and clear. Certainly in Edmonton—St. Albert the constituents are adamant that the $1.95, soon to be $2.00, per vote subsidy which costs taxpayers $30 million on an annual basis ought to be eliminated, and thankfully it would be eliminated with Bill C-13.

Political parties, and all other voluntary organizations, ought to be able to raise their own money. Of course, there is assistance that will continue, including a 75% tax credit for donations up to a specified amount. When we are dealing with a generous tax credit system, there is no reason for a political subsidy of $2.00 per vote. Canadians should only have to pay for and support the political parties that they support.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely disagree with the premise of that question. As I said in my remarks, the government has created 600,000 jobs since the recession of 2008. Most are full-time and almost all are in the private sector. It is the government's economic policies that nurture a business environment and allows small, medium and large businesses to make the new hires. I am reticent to believe that the opposition party can criticize the government with respect to job creation when the facts are that the government's job creation is the envy of any of its industrial partners.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from British Columbia for his question and his concern for small business.

Certainly, this government, unlike the previous government, recognizes the vital role that small business plays in the economy and job creation. Tax rates have continued to be lowered by this government, both in terms of corporate tax rates for small businesses that are incorporated and also individual tax rates for the small businesses in more of self-employed situations.

I am not sure if he is talking about employment insurance premiums, but certainly that fund has had some problems given that there have been more claimants with respect to the economic downturn. The government recognizes this, hence the $1,000 tax credit for new hires that would offset the costs of hiring new individuals.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today and speak to Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. This is important legislation, which seeks to implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

The bill seeks to implement a number of important initiatives announced in June's throne speech and also in the spring election, and reiterates our government's firm and strong commitment to continued economic growth and job creation for all Canadians. Our government's record speaks for itself and speaks loudly.

Since July 2009 our government has created 600,000 net new jobs, most of which are full-time, and our economy is consistently rated as one of the strongest in the world.

This weekend we saw protests concerning the banking system. We know Canada's banking system is on solid ground because of appropriate regulations regarding lending habits. Thanks to that, we have a strong economy and it is consistent with our government's overall vision for the economy. However, we are not immune to turbulent events occurring in the world economy and that is why we must pass the legislation before us to ensure that we are capable of withstanding whatever lies before us.

Bill C-13, also known colloquially as the budget implementation act, would create five general themes in which there are many provisions to implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. The five general themes include: first, the promotion of job creation and economic growth; second, support of communities; third, help families; fourth, investment in education and training; and, fifth, respect for taxpayers. What I propose to do today is highlight one or two specific implementation measures contained in Bill C-13 under each of the five broad categories.

With respect to job creation and economic growth, it is important to note that this legislation would provide a temporary hiring credit for small businesses to encourage additional hiring. There is some agreement on both sides of the House that small business really is the engine of economic growth in Canada.

I talk to small businessmen and women frequently when I am back home in Edmonton--St. Albert and they have told me that the cost of hiring is an impediment to the expansion of their business. It is not just simply a matter of salary. With respect to an individual who might draw a salary of $40,000 per annum, I understand the actual cost to that small business is probably closer to $55,000 or $60,000 when benefits, unemployment insurance premiums and training are calculated. The government's solution to this is the $1,000 hiring credit for small businesses to encourage them to hire individuals and add to their payroll. I think we would all agree that is an appropriate tax credit and one that would help small businesses continue to hire and continue to build and grow our economy.

Also of significance are the provisions that would eliminate the mandatory retirement age for federally-regulated employees in order to give older workers who wish to work the option of remaining in the workforce.

I come from Alberta, and it is blessed in its ability to somewhat sustain economic downturns because of its resource-based economy. Notwithstanding current instability, some economists predict that there will be labour shortages in Alberta of up to 70,000 workers, mostly in construction but also in manufacturing and administration.

Reducing the mandatory retirement age for workers who reach the age of 65 would do two important things. First, it would give workers the option, if they so choose and their health is good, to stay in the workforce. Second, it would help employers who might otherwise be experiencing employee shortages to have some benefit in terms of maintaining their existing workforce and not retiring those people who have reached the age of 65. In many cases these long-tenured employees are the most valuable employees because they have been with their employer for a long time. If they are of value to the employer, the employer will want to keep the employees notwithstanding some arbitrary number of 65 years of age.

The second major theme in Bill C-13 is with respect to the support of communities. Certainly, it is of benefit to all municipalities, legislation of a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable, long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities.

The municipalities in Edmonton—St. Albert have benefited from this gas tax fund. We have major infrastructure funding in Edmonton. Road construction seems to be an ongoing issue from the month of April to October. The city of Edmonton and the province of Alberta have nearly completed an aggressive ring road system, the Anthony Henday. The federal contribution with respect to that was from the gas tax fund.

Municipalities have been asking for stable funding, so to make this a permanent annual investment allows the municipalities to plan for their future capital infrastructure needs, and I credit the Minister of Finance with that provision in Bill C-13.

The other support for communities that I want to talk about is the tax credit for volunteer firefighters. This is an important provision, perhaps not that well understood. There are some 85,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada. These are individuals in small towns and counties who voluntarily fight fires to protect the property of their neighbours. Often fires occur in the middle of the night and individuals would be called from their sleep to fight a fire.

I am sure most members of the House know that there was a terrible fire northwest of Edmonton this year in Slave Lake. That required the resources of volunteer and professional firefighters. These individuals ought to be recognized for their contribution.

Third, with regard to helping families, we are introducing the new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers for all types of infirm dependent relatives. This is important to allow individuals to perhaps reduce their hours or, if they are self-employed, to reduce their revenue, to take care of elderly or infirm members of their family. Their business or employment opportunities will be compromised, but it allows the infirm or elderly member to be cared for in the home as opposed to putting that individual in some sort of group home, nursing home or retirement home. Ultimately, this is a great cost savings to taxpayers when these individuals can be looked after by their own families.

The new child tax credit would allow parents to deduct a tax credit for a portion of the fees for enrolling children in dance or music. We know these things can be expensive. There is value to both children and society and to families when children are involved in those types of activities. I credit the government for recognizing that and giving a tax credit to the parents.

We are forgiving loans to new doctors and nurses in underserved rural and remote areas. The last speaker talked about the doctor shortage and it is acute, but it is especially acute in rural and remote areas. This would help encourage doctors and nurses to relocate.

Finally, the fifth theme in this legislation is the respect for taxpayers. I am honoured and proud, and I wave this flag whenever I can, at the phasing out of the direct subsidy of political parties. I really believe, as do my constituents, that political parties ought to raise their own money and the taxpayer should not be compelled to pay for political causes that they do not support or believe in.

The economic action plan has been successful. The economy is on firm ground. We have one of the strongest, if not the strongest economy in the G7, and it is the result of this government's management.

Targeted investments are a reflection of the results we can achieve while working together toward the common goal of building strong and vibrant communities. The success of Canada's economic action plan is a tribute to the partnerships between local, provincial and federal governments.

We have risen to the challenge of the worst economic downturn in half a century, and with the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, Bill C-13, we will ensure a robust and durable economic recovery that will continue to keep Canadians employed and sustain Canada's economic advantage now and in the future.

[Justice, October 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government received a strong mandate to keep our streets and communities safe. That is why we are committed to a zero tolerance policy for drugs in prison.

Our government has been consistent: we must develop a correctional system that actually corrects criminal behaviour.

We reject categorically suggestions from the NDP and their soft on crime friends like the Elizabeth Fry Society that suggest: providing prisoners with needles and drugs in order to engage in harm reduction; taking drugs away from prisoners violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; drug interdiction methods are unfair to inmates by violating their privacy and drug sniffing dogs can scare away visitors; and, most shockingly of all, strip searches of inmates suspected of smuggling drugs or weapons is tantamount to “lawful sexual assault by the state”.

Yesterday the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore demanded that I apologize for allegedly wronging this criminal group. I suggest it is the NDP that should apologize to Canadians for its complicity in the soft on crime coalition and for refusing to stand up for victims. I call—

[Points of Order, October 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I stand by my S.O. 31. The record from yesterday's committee will reflect that I quoted the said society accurately and correctly and I stand by those statements.

[Public Safety, October 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to keep our streets and communities safe. That is why our government urged the public safety committee to undertake a study of drugs in the prison system.

As we know, developing drug-free prisons was a key commitment that our government made to Canadians in the recent election.

However, not all seem to agree with this common-sense approach. In fact, at the invitation of the NDP member for Surrey North, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies appeared at the committee yesterday to push its soft-on-criminals agenda. Among other outrageous comments, this group stated that strip-searching inmates to ensure that they are not smuggling illicit drugs or other contraband is a systematic “sexual assault by the state”.

Not only is this a slap in the face to our correctional officers and legally dubious, it is absolutely insulting to those who have actually been victimized by a sexual predator.

I call on the NDP to finally stop putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding Canadians.