David Sweet

[Petitions, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that this is the time for petitions but it was my understanding, procedurally, that members were not supposed to speak for or against a petition. It is my understanding that the member has clearly taken a position on this, which is against the Standing Orders.

[Petitions, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from hundreds of Canadians who state that Canada is the only nation in the western world without any laws restricting abortion. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.

[Religious Freedom, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago today a tragic shooting in Pakistan sent an ominous message to the world.

It was March 2, 2011 when Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian minister in Pakistan's government, was ruthlessly ambushed and shot dead in the streets of the capital.

We remember his legacy of advocating for peace and religious tolerance under the toughest of circumstances. He stood up for religious minorities and against extremism, and for that he was brutally murdered.

As Canadians, we must continue to advocate for those in the world who yearn for the freedom of religion and worship, a basic right that we hold so dear but that eludes millions.

We remember Shahbaz Bhatti's great legacy at a time when another example of intolerance of religious minorities is unfolding in Iran. There have been media reports that Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, jailed for the past two years, has been sentenced to death in Iran for peaceably practising the basic tenets of his faith.

I ask all members to join me in the urgent and renewed appeal for international pressure on the Iranian government on behalf of pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.

[Scouts Canada, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is St. Valentine's Day, and although my seatmate stole my thunder, I also give my love to my dear wife Almut on this day and every day, of course.

Tomorrow is Scouts Day on Parliament Hill and so I would like to rise today to recognize Scouts Canada.

We salute the work of thousands of volunteers who make a very important mentoring, guiding and coaching impression on young Canadians.

In June, Scouts Canada will celebrate 104 years in Canada and 98 years since being incorporated in Canada by an act of Parliament.

Today Scouts Canada is a highly diverse, co-ed organization with over 100,000 members nationwide and programs in 19 languages. L'Association des Scouts du Canada also offers scouting activities for 17,000 francophone youth from coast to coast.

On behalf of Senator Con Di Nino, chair of the Scouts Canada Parliamentary Friendship Group, I would like to remind members of the reception tomorrow evening from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in Room 160-S. Please join us in recognizing inspiring, civic-minded youth and volunteers.

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

Mr. Speaker, they have been pretty consistent about grabbing figures out of the air and trying to make them into something. The member talked about a 40% decrease in overall violent crime in Canada. She would probably need to explain the 45% decrease in violent crime in the United States since it did not have a gun registry. There is no evidence at all to the notion that it is directly linked.

I would like the member to explain how she can tie the data she has directly to the registry and how, if somebody used a registered firearm, we would be able to prevent that crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that this is still in place. I also mentioned in my speech that this test was not something that people just cruised through. Not everybody passes these tests. It is quite intense and really ensures that people know exactly what they are dealing with, how dangerous a firearm is and how to handle them and that they also know the municipal, provincial and federal laws that govern them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that an emergency room physician was at committee. No compelling evidence was presented at committee regarding any increase or decrease as far as when the long gun registry came into effect. I think I made it very clear throughout my speech that there was no hard data and, frankly, no anecdotal data saying that the long gun registry had made Canadians safer.

I was in the public accounts committee in 2006 when the auditor general presented her report. At that time, she said that the accuracy of the data was to a point where it could actually endanger people. What I heard today from my colleague was that 4,400 firearms were stolen and were re-registered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member, if he looks at the blues, that I never said anything about political games. I said it was a non-partisan issue, and it absolutely is. This is about the safety of Canadians and it is about treating law-abiding citizens with respect and dignity. This is all about that.

The registry is the data. If we are saying we are going to get rid of the long gun registry, then we are going to get rid of the data. That is simply it. However, I did mention in my speech that we were very much for the licensing process already there. We have invested more money into that, and that data is very accurate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to add my voice to this important debate on the ending of the Long-gun Registry Act. With this legislation we propose to finally remove a measure that has had no tangible benefit in keeping Canadians safe. Rather, it has added unnecessary paper work and placed an unfair burden on law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong besides have the audacity to own a rifle or a shotgun.

The long gun registry has played a divisive role in pitting rural Canadians against urban Canadians. It has been touted as a safety measure that protects police even as we hear from the police themselves that it is unreliable and inaccurate. It has been said to save lives. Yet no one has ever presented compelling evidence to that end. Rather, we have heard directly from Canadians and witnesses who have appeared before committee with two clear messages: it is a waste of taxpayers' money and it is ineffective.

Let us consider the cost of the registry.

The registry was put in place in 1995 with the promised price tag of around $120 million for start-up costs. Most of this was supposed to be covered by registration and licensing fees. However, in her 2002 report and the follow-up 2006 report, the then auditor general of Canada found that the costs were nowhere near that. She did a thorough review of the cost escalations in her review. She estimated that the cost of the Canadian firearms program was many hundreds of millions of dollars by 2005.

This is an affront to Canadian taxpayers. In a media story in 2003, the auditor general put it this way:

The issue here is not gun control and it's not even astronomical cost overruns. What's really inexcusable is that Parliament was in the dark.

Even more, in 2004, the CBC reported that the cost of the long gun registry was well in excess of $2 billion. Is it any surprise that these revelations were met with renewed calls to end the long gun registry? The answer, of course, is a resounding no.

Despite the attempts of long gun registry supporters to convince Canadians that the long gun registry is saving lives, there is simply no compelling data to back that claim up. It is clear to many millions of Canadians that the long gun registry is both wasteful and ineffective. It is for these reasons that our government has worked tirelessly since coming into power to end the long gun registry.

If we were to believe the naysayers, we might imagine that eliminating the long gun registry would lead to rampant gun crime and Wild West shootouts in the streets. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we already have many tough and effective measures in place that are helping to prevent gun crime.

There are three key approaches to cracking down on violent crimes.

First of all, something that would not change with Bill C-19, is a strict licensing system that is already in place. To lawfully possess a firearm, every Canadian must be in possession of a valid firearms licence.

Anyone who wants to acquire a firearm must undergo a required Canadian firearms safety course. This is not a quick online quiz. Rather, it is a comprehensive 10 hour classroom course that gives students a working knowledge of the safe handling of firearms. It also ensures that they are familiar with the laws and procedures regarding firearm ownership.

As part of this licence application, every individual is also screened to ensure there is no reason to believe that the public would be in danger if that individual gained a licence. This includes checking the individual's criminal record to see if he or she has been prohibited by law to own a gun or poses any general danger to society.

These are reasonable measures that have been widely accepted by gun owners across the country. As noted, none of that would change with the legislation we are discussing today. In fact, we feel so strongly about the effectiveness of the gun licensing system that we have invested $7 million annually to improve the screening process for first-time firearms licensees. We believe that this is helping to keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them.

Our second area of focus in gun control is the work we have done to ensure that those who commit gun crimes face stiff sentences. We have passed legislation that sets out mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious gun crimes, as well as reverse bail provisions for serious offences. We have put in place laws that target drive-by shootings that demonstrate a reckless disregard for the safety of others. There is now a mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years in prison, up to a maximum of 14 years, for these crimes. That minimum sentence goes up five years if the individual committed the act on behalf of a criminal organization or used a restricted or prohibited handgun or automatic firearm in the progress of the crime. These are tough measures. They send a strong message that those who commit violent gun crimes will face severe consequences.

We have also taken decisive action to ensure that we have the appropriate level of police officers to enforce these tough laws. We have invested in significant funds in helping prevent crime through programs like the youth gang prevention fund and the national crime prevention strategy. We have invested quite a bit in my own city of Hamilton, Ontario, to ensure we keep youth from crime.

The third approach has been to strengthen our borders to stem the flood of illegally smuggled firearms from the United States. We know that the majority of firearms smuggled into Canada are coming across the 49th parallel. Our efforts to crack down on this illegal activity have taken many forms, including the deployment of the integrated border enforcement teams at strategic points along the border, as well as testing new and innovative cross-border policing models such as shiprider to combat illegal smuggling along our borders. Shiprider pilot projects, which involve specially trained and designated RCMP and U.S. Coast Guard officers jointly crewing marine vessels to enforce laws on both sides of the border, have proven to have a direct and measurable impact on cross-border criminality.

Given their success, the Prime Minister and the U.S. president have announced, in the context of a shared vision, that we would look to regularize shiprider operations, as well as leverage the shiprider concept to land-based operations. By working closely with our U.S. counterparts, we can better identify, interdict and prosecute those individuals who attempt to smuggle firearms into our country.

In light of what we know about the long gun registry, we are faced with two choices. We can continue with the status quo, pouring good money after bad into a long gun registry that is in effective and wasteful, or we can do what responsible parliamentarians should do, which is to consider the facts.

In summary, I believe there are three points we must all consider. First, the long gun registry has cost Canadian taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money, far more than they were originally told when it was put in place in 1995. Second, many police officers are telling us that the long gun registry is not reliable, full of errors and has done nothing to keep Canadians safe. Third, there is no statistic showing us that the long gun registry has had any impact in terms of saving lives or deterring individuals from committing violent gun-related crimes.

This is not a matter of partisan or personal views; it is a matter of common sense. The long gun registry has not worked since its inception in 1995. It is not working today and it will not work in the future. I ask all hon. members to stand up for law-abiding Canadians and vote to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2012]

You certainly weren't a member of Liberal party, either.