David Christopherson

[Afghanistan, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, last November the Prime Minister assured Canadians that this new training and aid mission in Afghanistan would involve “minimal risks to Canada”. Now, tragically, we see that just is not the case.

We still have 950 troops stationed in Afghanistan. Their families need an honest assessment about the true risks of this new mission.

Why has the Prime Minister not been more clear and straightforward about the real risks our soldiers are facing in Kabul?

[Afghanistan, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats joined all Canadians in mourning the tragic loss of Master Corporal Byron Greff on Saturday. Master Corporal Greff and 16 others were struck by a suicide bomb on the outskirts of Kabul.

Will the Prime Minister give the House an update on his current view of the security situation our troops are now facing in Afghanistan?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[National Defence, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would feel a bit defensive, too, if I signed on to a program that even conservative U.S. senator John McCain called “a train wreck”. Even our international partners, such as Australia, Israel and Turkey, are now delaying their commitment to the F-35s.

When will the Conservatives finally admit their F-35 boondoggle is quickly unravelling and bring it to an end?

[National Defence, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the pressure is mounting against the purchase of F-35s. Today, we learned that the Minister of National Defence is increasingly offside from other cabinet members and the Prime Minister's Office. Why? Because the F-35 does not work in the Arctic and is plagued by delays. It is wildly over budget, and the list goes on and on.

Will the government finally stop its F-35 boondoggle before it is just too late?

[Jimmy Lomax, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on October 9, Hamilton's Santa Claus, Jimmy Lomax, passed away at his home.

Known throughout our community for his immense generosity and kindness, Jimmy and his wife Susan were the heart and soul of Operation Santa Claus, a charitable organization they founded in 1958 to help collect and distribute gifts to underprivileged families throughout Hamilton.

Jimmy's dedication to helping the less fortunate earned him numerous recognitions, including Hamilton's Distinguished Citizen of the Year, the Queen's Jubilee Medal, the Ontario Medal for Outstanding Citizenship and our highest honour, the Order of Canada.

Jimmy is also extremely deserving of the Hamilton's children's park that will be named in his honour in the coming weeks. Christmas in Hamilton just will not be same without Santa Jimmy.

On behalf of all hon. members, I would like to extend our heartfelt condolences to the Lomax family. Jimmy's dedication to helping children, especially during the holiday season, was an inspiration to all, and he will be greatly missed.

[Infrastructure, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and compliment my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for a fantastic speech, outlining something that, for most people, is really boring. They do not think a lot about what happens when they turn on water and the importance of their life being safe while driving down highways.

Would the member underscore the importance of this as a life-saving issue, not just pretty things in a community but actual infrastructure that supports ordinary life and families living in our communities?

[National Defence, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the minister will appreciate that Canadians are nervous about the government getting us into yet another big, expensive, sole-sourced boondoggle: the Chinooks, the F-35s, the Cyclones.

We have been here before and it has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and this sure looks like another boondoggle in the making.

What will the minister do differently this time to make sure that it does not happen again?