Dave MacKenzie

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the issue brought forward by the hon. member. Certainly the opinion in the letter from that particular individual and organization is not necessarily shared by the whole organization. I am aware of that. I am in contact with a number of police officers partly because of my history and partly because of where I am today.

I would say to the member that she only has to look at the one issue she brought up in suggesting that the tragic deaths of the four officers in Mayerthorpe by the hand of a criminal with a rifle proves the need for the long gun registry. In fact, the registry's monumental failure to prevent the tragic deaths of these police officers underscores registering firearms of law-abiding people. The criminal who committed these crimes was in illegal possession of a firearm despite the presence of the registry. The events prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the ineffective uselessness of the long gun registry in protecting our society.

That is what we have been saying. Registering the long guns is not the answer to protecting society. Having owners of firearms registered and following up the rules with respect to the owners themselves is far more important than a registry of each individual long gun.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to address the motion before us today which raises some very important issues related to gun control and effective gun crime prevention in Canada. Some hon. members will know that I served as a police officer for 30 years before entering politics, so today's motion is of particular interest to me as I know it is to all hard-working and law-abiding Canadians.

There is not one person in the House who does not want to make sure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands, the hands of criminals, the hands of criminal gangs, the hands of organized crime, and the hands of the mentally unstable. All of us on both sides of the House want to make sure that our streets are safe and that we continue to build safer communities for everyone. That is what our Conservative government has committed to since we were first elected in 2006. That is what we are doing and that is what we are going to continue to do through concrete and tangible measures designed to crack down on crime, and gun crime in particular, over the coming months.

That said, I would like to take the opportunity to commend the hon. member for his interest in crime prevention. Unfortunately, today's motion would accomplish neither. The hon. member has attempted to combine two very distinct concepts, that being the continuation of the one-year amnesty and the continuation of the ill-conceived and ineffectual long gun registry. These two concepts are unique to one another and not intertwined as the opposition would like us to believe.

The hon. member may not realize it, but if his two-headed motion were to pass into law, it would in fact only serve to weaken gun control in Canada by eliminating measures that the government has introduced specifically to increase the number of people who are in compliance with the law and therefore subject to the current automatic oversight provisions that exist. The motion, if passed, would also mean that we would continue to waste increasingly scarce resources on the long gun registry, something that has been proven to be a failure.

Our government's goal is to prudently address issues of crime and criminality and to use our financial resources in a responsible and effective manner. I am reminded of the words of the hon. member for Kings—Hants when he stated, “We should be getting rid of the long-gun registry. A billion dollars would have been better spent on health care or education or, for instance, in the strengthening of the RCMP, which has been underfunded for several years”. We would agree with that. That clarity comes from hindsight that makes these words more true today than when they were first stated more than five years ago.

Over the last three years the Government of Canada has passed considerable legislation to tackle violent crime. We introduced mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes as well as reverse onus bail provisions for serious offences and these changes were long overdue.

I cannot escape the fact that despite having been in government for more than 13 years, the Liberal Party did little more than criminalize the actions of thousands of law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and farmers while doing nothing to deal with real criminals and real crime.

Our Conservative government has provided more money to the provinces and territories so they could hire additional police officers. The government has also committed to helping the RCMP recruit and train more personnel to which in excess of 1,500 new RCMP officers are now in a position to take up their duties all across Canada.

These two initiatives, which I know from firsthand experience, will by themselves do more to help prevent and tackle serious gun crimes in Canada, more than the long gun registry ever has or ever will. As well, the government has taken action to help young people make smart choices and avoid becoming involved in gang activities through programs funded through the National Crime Prevention Centre.

Most recently, the government introduced legislation that among other things will create a new broad-based offence to target drive-by and other intentional shootings that involve the reckless disregard for the life or safety of others. Anyone convicted of such acts would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison with a maximum period of imprisonment of 14 years. If these acts are committed by, or for a criminal organization, or with a restricted or prohibited firearm such as a handgun or automatic weapon, the minimum sentence would increase to five years.

This government has also introduced legislation to crack down on organized crime and drugs by imposing mandatory jail time for people involved in serious drug crimes. The new legislation proposes an escalating scheme of mandatory prison sentences, where there is an aggravating or safety factor, to reflect the increasing level of threats these crimes pose to our society.

Through these measures the government has shown that it is serious about getting tough on crime, especially on gun crime.

We also need to ensure that we have a system of gun control that is both effective and efficient. That is why the government has also invested $7 million annually to strengthen the front-end screening of first-time firearms licence applicants with a view to keeping firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them. This critical first step is essential with respect to any legislation looking to address the problems associated with gun crime and irresponsible gun ownership.

We have to ensure that our gun laws keep firearms out of the hands of those who threaten our communities, our safety and our lives. That is also why the government has undertaken a number of initiatives over the last three years to enhance compliance and public safety while easing administrative burdens for lawful and responsible firearms owners.

We have taken steps to help nearly 11,000 gun owners with expired possession-only licences come back into compliance with the current federal firearms legislation. We have made it easier for law-abiding Canadians to comply with the current firearms legislation. We have put in place an amnesty so that those people who are taking advantage of such measures to comply with the law are not criminalized in the process.

The reason we are doing all this is quite simple. It is to protect Canadians, making sure that as many gun owners as possible are properly and lawfully licensed and therefore subject to continuous eligibility screening. It is this critically important element of the amnesty that will come to an end without the extension. Without the amnesty, it means that overall compliance will dramatically drop and many fewer gun owners will be properly licensed.

The Government of Canada is determined to maintain an effective firearms control system while at the same time combatting the criminal use of firearms and getting tough with crime. We are also committed to investing in crime prevention measures that work and to doing away with the wasteful and ineffective ones that do not, such as today's long gun registry which penalizes law-abiding Canadians on the basis of where they live or how they earn a living.

Hon. members will know that the government has recently introduced legislation in the other place to retain licensing requirements for all gun owners while doing away with the need for honest and law-abiding citizens to undergo the burden of registering their non-restricted rifles or shotguns, a burden which has proven to have had no impact on reducing gun crimes or serious criminality within Canada.

Our government's approach to gun control is both balanced and prudent. What is proposed are changes that do away with the need to register legally acquired and legally used rifles and shotguns. The record shows that a great many of these firearms are owned by the honest and hard-working Canadians living in rural or remote areas. These people have never been in trouble with the law and are fundamentally different from the gangs and organized crime that have infested a number of our municipalities. The scarce government resources should be directed toward initiatives which actually make our streets safer. That is what Canadians want. They want policies that make sense. They want crime prevention initiatives that target criminals rather than farmers and duck hunters. They want effective gun control measures that improve public safety rather than unnecessarily criminalizing law-abiding citizens.

I therefore cannot support the motion put forward by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, a motion which is both ill-conceived and contrary to the best interests of Canadians.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the floor as he delivered his speech. A number of issues came up and I would like to ask him how he verified the information he provided to the House.

One item in particular caught my attention. He talked about his experience, but I have a little practical experience in this field also. He indicated that 75% of suicides are caused by firearms. I would really question where that statistic came from. In addition, I would question his reasoning behind the idea that registering firearms would mean that the firearms would not be used to commit suicide. I think he has made a connection in some way and I do not believe there is anything to support it other than an opinion.

I wonder if he would explain to the House where the figure of 75% came from and how registering a firearm would prevent a suicide.

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present, in both official languages, two copies of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, public report for the fiscal year 2007-08.

[Public Safety, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, actually the report demonstrates the value of an independent, objective and timely internal audit service. The audit concluded that the control framework for the management of seized goods was not effective in providing assurance to management that seized goods were safeguarded, accounted for and properly disposed of.

CBSA is taking steps to correct that. I expect that most of that will be in place very shortly.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a former police officer with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The bill is about providing equalization to the RCMP and to those members who are currently serving and those who wish to join. I do know what my colleague is speaking about. We all suffered during a period of time when we were all forced to take time off even if we did not want to. I am not sure this is the proper place to debate those things today.

This is a good bill. We need to take the high road on it and get it through the House in a hurry.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this member took this opportunity to get quite a ways off base. If he had been here a few minutes earlier, he would have heard that I was not a member of the RCMP. In fact, I was a member of a municipal police force in Canada.

This bill is about assisting RCMP officers, those who join in lateral entry or those who leave and take lateral entry to another force for whatever reason. If the hon. member was to make inquires and to listen to the committee, he would find that the RCMP have been able to recruit large numbers of new recruits. This government has begun the process that was ended by the former government in paying recruits while they are at depot, which is something brand new in these last few months.

I appreciate his comments, but I think that he is in the wrong venue, given the tenor of this bill.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think some of the issues that are raised may be more in the realm of what they may be or may not be. Some of the issues may have been already resolved within the act itself. I think the proper place for us to examine those will be in committee.

The member who just asked the question is a valued member of that committee. I am certain he will have those questions and by the time this gets to committee, we will have those answers for him. I think they are appropriate, they are questions that may very well be out there from a lot of people. Within committee, will be the appropriate place to get those answers.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, some of the questions from the member opposite are far too technical for me to answer today. I simply do not have the answers, but I am more than happy to find out for him.

The biggest single advantage to this amendment is that it will now allow the RCMP and other police agencies to be on level playing fields to have lateral movement. In the organization I came from, people left to go to the RCMP and vice versa. There were always difficulties for those members in trying to match up the pension benefits because the legislation was not there.

This is an opportunity for that whole area to be strengthened and to provide clarity. From my perspective, and I think from the community's perspective, one of the bad things that happens is that good young men and women want to do a great job in policing and for whatever reason decide they would like to continue their careers perhaps in other communities and the options are not available. When people are members of a municipal force they are located in that community, so they frequently look to move or, as I said in my earlier comments, it may be that their family is moving.

This will provide the opportunity to keep those good people within policing. It is what they have been trained for and what many of them have dedicated their lives to. It is a good opportunity.

I would like to thank my friend across the aisle for thinking that I might want to continue my career in policing. I think it is in the past as opposed to in the future.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, April 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-18.

As hon. members may know, I spent 30 years as a member of the police department of Woodstock, Ontario. I entered as a constable and retired from the force as chief of police. The well-being of Canada's police officers is a subject near and dear to my own heart.

What we have before us is a matter of unfinished business.

This bill proposes certain technical amendments to the RCMP Superannuation Act which would improve pension portability; in other words, transferring the value of benefits earned under a former plan to a new one.

The act was first amended in 1999, with the same intent. However, when work began on drafting the enabling regulations, it was learned the legislative changes did not go far enough. This bill would close those gaps. Once implemented through regulation, these amendments would modernize the RCMP Superannuation Act and bring it in line with the federal public service pension plan and other plans.

Specifically, Bill C-18 would do three things.

First, it would support Parliament's 1999 intention to expand existing provisions for election of prior service. Currently, members of the RCMP pension plan can transfer credits for prior service with a police force that was absorbed by the RCMP, with the Canadian Forces, with the Public Service of Canada, with the Senate, or with the House of Commons. Under new provisions, eligible members could elect to purchase credits from other Canadian pension plans; a municipal or provincial police force, for instance.

Second, is the matter of pension transfer arrangements that the amended superannuation act would support. As we know, a pension transfer agreement is typically a formal arrangement between two employers. It would allow a plan member to increase pensionable service by directly transferring the actuarial value of benefits earned under a previous plan to a new one.

Last, the bill contains other related amendments that would clarify and improve some administrative and eligibility aspects of the act. For example, it would validate certain historical calculations related to part-time employment and the cost of elections for prior service with a police force that was taken over by the RCMP. It would also better protect pension eligibility for those transferring benefits from the public service, the Canadian Forces, or for retired senators and members of Parliament who continue their career with the RCMP.

Greater fairness and flexibility in RCMP superannuation are important considerations. They are important benefits that this bill would deliver.

Like pretty much all employers in the country, the RCMP faces an aging workforce and stiff competition from other employers seeking to attract the best and brightest to their ranks. Somewhere around 700 members are retiring each year from the RCMP.

To replace retiring members and meet operational requirements in the future, the RCMP must attract and train a record number of recruits for the next few years. This is another area where improved pension portability may be important, especially when it comes to the recruitment of lateral troops. These are officers with at least two years' service, typically with a municipal or provincial force, who have decided to continue their careers with the RCMP. As such, their training is much shorter than that of regular cadets, at just five weeks.

The idea is to leverage the experience of lateral entrants to quickly develop fully trained police officers who are ready to take up their duties upon arrival in detachment. Once they are there, they require far less supervision by experienced officers, known as field coaches, than brand new constables. That frees up more resources for policing our communities.

Lateral entrants represent just a fraction of the cadets who graduate from the RCMP's training facility each year, roughly 3% or 4%, so we are not talking large numbers. However, at a time of attrition and an increasingly complex and challenging security environment, the RCMP needs all the personnel it can get. Pension portability can help attract experienced officers through the door.

In fact, I hold in my hand excerpts from the 2005 report of the Auditor General of Canada. In it, the Auditor General notes that the cost of training a regular cadet is about $30,000, compared to $2,000 for a lateral entry. Of the lateral entry program, the report states: “--this program is not attractive to potential employees as they cannot transfer their pension contributions to the RCMP pension plan”. All of that would change under the proposed amendments before the House today.

The RCMP Depot is currently capable of training up to 90 lateral entrants a year divided into three troops of 30, but up to now a typical lateral troop contains only about 16 entrants. We believe pension portability has a lot to do with that as, again, it is available right now only to former military police who are covered by the federal Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

I would also like to note that pension portability as it pertains to transfer agreements is a two-way street. RCMP members may occasionally seek employment with other agencies and organizations, for example, when a family relocates to a new community. If a transfer agreement is in place between the two organizations, then members can take their prior service with them as credit toward pension benefits.

Mobility and flexibility within Canada's security community is a good thing. It benefits the safety of all Canadians and today's generation of employees want options, opportunities and recognition for their good work. This kind of flexibility is already reflected in the pension plans of other federal workers, so I think it only fair that the RCMP members enjoy the same treatment.

It is important to take every reasonable opportunity to support recruitment to our national police force and the well-being and morale of its members. The House saw fit once already in the past to make the legislative adjustments it believed would facilitate greater pension portability to RCMP superannuation, but we have since learned those changes fell short of what was required to put enabling regulations in place to make it all happen.

Let us do it now and not a moment too soon. I call on all hon. members to support the RCMP by supporting Bill C-18.