Dean Del Mastro

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect to the people across the way, when they quote numbers like that and simply say one out of three women who are killed at home are killed by a long gun, how were the other two out of three killed?

The bottom line is this. Why are we not looking at the three out of three and coming up with laws that actually protect people? A registry cannot protect people. Registering a gun can no more protect people than registering a car can stop someone from drinking and driving.

Those members should get their heads around the issue and understand that these are crimes. The way to target crime is by going after the criminal, not going after every law-abiding Canadian and branding them all as criminals. That is what the opposition seeks to do. It is shameful.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the government House leader for moving forward with Bill C-11. As we have just heard, it is a very important economic bill for this country. It is something that I think many Canadians agree we have been debating since the late 1990s in this House. I am very pleased to see the government House leader once again taking action in support of Canadian jobs, investment and Canadian creators. I think it is wonderful news.

I am pleased to voice my strong support to end the long gun registry and I would like to provide a little history for the House about my riding of Peterborough.

My riding is proudly home to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, a group that has done so much in support of conservation and the rural way of life. It has long represented traditional Canadian hobbies and so forth and has done so with distinction. It is something that I know my community is very proud of.

I remember back in the mid-1990s when the long gun registry was first discussed and voted upon in this House. The member who represented Peterborough at that time did not listen to his constituents. In my riding, wherever you went there were vehicles parked everywhere with stickers against Bill C-68. Shortly after Bill C-68 was passed, there was vehicles everywhere with stickers that said, “Remember Bill C-68 when you vote”.

This issue was never settled. It was seen in my riding as an attack on the rural way of life, on farmers and on folks who have long enjoyed hobbies in the outdoors like hunting, fishing and trapping. For my first nations, for example, these are long traditional pastimes. What really offended them was that the gun registry targeted the wrong people.

I will never forget a great member of Parliament in this House shortly after I was first elected. His name was Myron Thompson and he represented the riding of Wild Rose. He gave a historical perspective of what was going on when the long gun registry was being contemplated.

Myron Thompson told this House about how he and a number of other members of the Reform Party at that time went to the then justice minister, Allan Rock, and suggested that what they would really like to see prioritized in Canada was the protection of children from adult sexual predators. It was something that Myron Thompson won awards for years later, his championing of the protection of young people.

He was told at the time by the ideological government of the day that it was not going to focus on that. Instead, it was going to create a long gun registry. The theory behind that was as flawed then as it is today. It targets the wrong people.

I have been a member in this House since 2006. I ran in three elections making one simple promise and one solemn vow to my constituents that, provided the chance, I would vote against the long gun registry. I would put all the resources that had been wasted and used ineffectively, as indicated clearly by the Auditor General, into tackling crime and targeting those who committed crimes with guns. What I and this government would never do would be to point the finger of blame for gun crime at law-abiding Canadians. For too long that has been the way things have been in this House.

It requires the most basic knowledge to realize, first, that firearms in the hands of law-abiding Canadians are no more harmful than any other piece of property. Second, inundating law-abiding Canadians with red tape will not reduce crime. It has not.

The numbers speak for themselves. No one can point to a single life that has been saved by the long gun registry. We hear numbers thrown around all the time. These numbers are purely fictitious.

They talk about how many times the gun registry is used or accessed every day. They know that this is for things as simple as writing a fine for a highway traffic act violation. It has nothing to do with the registry whatsoever.

We see a lack of knowledge about firearm issues too frequently in the opposition benches. The opposition members throw around terms like “sniper rifle” and empty rhetoric only to confuse and frighten Canadians about the real issues.

Let me clarify the issue once and for all. A sniper rifle is simply a rifle used by a sniper, nothing more or less. There is no difference between the firearms described by my colleague from St. John's East and any high-powered rifle used by hunters and target shooters. This type of misinformation shows at best a lack of basic firearms knowledge or at worst an attempt by the NDP to merely placate the wishes of special interest groups.

We saw this very behaviour just a few months ago. I would argue that the following was done deliberately to mislead Canadians. The NDP designed billboards featuring silhouettes of various firearms that it knew were restricted firearms and had nothing to do with the long gun registry. However, the NDP ran with them anyway, because facts for the NDP and the Liberals have no place in this debate. This is an ideological debate for the left. It is about going after the wrong people.

Ultimately, however, the debate always must come back to the people the long gun registry has affected: farmers, ranchers, hunters, trappers, sport shooters, first nations. They have broken no laws. What have they done to deserve this kind of targeting by government? They are Canadians who work hard, play by the rules, contribute to conservation programs and enjoy the freedom to go to a shooting range or to go on a hunting trip with their friends and family.

The long gun registry was created in the aftermath of a tragedy and we should all be mindful of that. However, that does not mean it was the right thing to do. It targeted the wrong people. The tragedy that occurred in Quebec at École Polytechnique was committed by a criminal. The bottom line is that if we are going to prevent things like that, we have to target criminal activity. We do not target everyone and consider them all to be criminals. That is what this legislation did.

Firearms owners have been told for years that something must be wrong with them. They have been made to feel at fault for gun crime as if gang-related gun violence were somehow connected to hunting or a shooting sport. It is not logical, it is wrong and Canadians see and know that. They understand that this was a waste of money, time, and resources and that it targeted the wrong people. Simply put, the logic behind the gun registry was faulty. Criminals do not register their guns; they buy them from other criminals. These guns are largely stolen and smuggled across the border.

The opposition members often cite tragedy. They quote groups and well-meaning individuals who have blindly bought into this ideology that somehow this registration system can protect someone. Some of them say, “You register your car, why not your gun?” I would say back to them, “Wow, that's really creative. How does registering anything prevent it from being used in a crime?” It does nothing.

Last year there were a couple of fatal stabbings in my riding, absolute tragedies. In fact, far more people are killed with knives than guns. Would they propose that we register kitchen knives? Should every knife in Canada be registered so that no one would be stabbed? This is a nonsensical, crazy ideology that has long targeted the wrong people. If they really want to target violence against women and crime in our communities, then let them stand, just once, in support of justice legislation that protects those who need protection from criminals. Do not treat every Canadian like a criminal, which is what they propose.

The former Auditor General had her word on this. She said that the data in the long gun registry are faulty and should not be relied upon. For a long time, the good people of my riding stood against this bill. I am proud to support this bill today.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, December 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, after that intervention, we should start pumping more oxygen into the opposition lobby because something has the member clearly dazed and confused.

It is interesting, on a bill about citizen's arrest, the member has used the same speech as he has used on the last seven or eight bills. I think it was the same speech.

Does the member see the merit in the bill that is before the House, Bill C-26? Does he understand how citizens have a right to protect themselves and their businesses and why there is a need for justice in this case? Does he support the government measure?

[Employee of the Year Award, December 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my warmest congratulations to Wilma Anderson from my riding of Peterborough for winning employee of the year at the Canadian Tourism Awards. This award is presented to a front-line employee who best exemplifies excellence in the tourism industry. The Tourism Industry Association of Canada recognized Wilma on November 24 for her stellar work at Elmhirst's Resort near Peterborough.

Wilma joined Elmhirst's Resort in 1985 as a dishwasher, later moving to housekeeping and eventually managing the department. In 1990, Wilma was promoted to guest services manager. As a single parent struggling to balance home and work, she was able to take over the department and without any formal training excel at supervision, staff motivation, budgeting and time management. Her caring attitude and willingness to provide a hug when needed has helped Elmhirst's Resort become the successful small business it is today.

I congratulate Wilma for her hard work and her perseverance. I congratulate everyone at Elmhirst's Resort for winning this prestigious award.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a great point. Elgin—Middlesex—London, not unlike Peterborough, is a mixed riding. It contains both urban and rural centres and that is a particular challenge.

As the member suggested, my riding is medium in size geographically. It is certainly much larger than some of the metropolitan ridings, but it is much smaller than some of the northern ridings and so forth.

The member is absolutely correct in pointing out that by expanding the number of seats, we will be increasing access for folks in each of the constituencies to speak to their MP and to do so in a convenient manner. The Liberal plan would remove rural voices. Those folks would have a lot farther to travel and fewer doors would be open to them.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is not about courage. I would argue it is about practising the art of the possible.

We have constitutional guarantees in this country that the member is simply not acknowledging. He is saying that we can set the number at 308 and we will make sure that every vote in the country is equal. He knows in his heart that is not true. He knows in his heart that simply cannot be done.

I could never support the member's plan. I would gladly go into any rural part of the country and debate with the member on this fact. His plan in absolute terms would reduce the number of voices that speak for farmers. It would reduce the number of voices that speak for tourism operators. It would reduce the number of voices that speak for natural resource companies. It would reduce the number of voices that speak for all the various rural municipalities in this country. In absolute terms it would reduce the number of voices that represent them here. I am totally opposed to that.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair and reasonable question. The principle on which the bill is built is to allocate an increased number of seats now and in the future to better reflect the growing populations of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. We also want to maintain the number of seats in smaller provinces. This is a principle. We do not want to take any seats away. We want to make sure that the proportional representation of Quebec according to its population would be maintained no matter what the formula was.

The bill would specifically add fifteen seats for Ontario, six seats for Alberta, six seats for British Columbia, and three seats for Quebec. That is in keeping with the principles we set out to maintain. It is also in keeping with making sure that all provinces are fairly represented.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to join in the debate on this very important bill. It seems to be a spirited debate between the members in the far corner and some of the members on the government side.

The bill represents a commitment that our government made to Canadians to move the House toward fairer representation. In particular, it reflects our government's three distinct promises to provide fair representation by: allocating an increased number of seats now and in the future to better reflect the population growth in Ontario, which is my home province, British Columbia and Alberta; maintaining the number of seats for smaller provinces; and maintaining the proportional representation of Quebec according to its population.

We campaigned on those promises and Canadians voted in a strong, stable, national Conservative government. We received a strong mandate and with this bill we are moving the House of Commons toward fair representation for all Canadians. We promised that to Canadians; they voted for us, and we are delivering on that.

I would be remiss if I did not specifically challenge the member who just spoke. I was going to ask him a question, but because I was next to speak, I thought I would address it in my remarks.

I have coined a term for the Liberal proposal. It is a little catchy, and if members find themselves saying it later, it is okay; they do not have to give me credit for it. I call it the Liberal loser plan.

The Liberal plan is a loser because it takes seats away from provinces including Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the maritime provinces, but it also makes a loser out of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta because they are not getting fair representation. It takes the voices away from rural Canada and deposits them in urban Canada. It would take seats away from Manitoba, for example. I would be very interested to see the member go into rural parts of Manitoba and talk about how those people are going to lose representation in the House. That voice for agriculture, that voice for natural resource economies, that voice for rural infrastructure, that voice that speaks on behalf of wardens in rural municipalities, those voices are not going to be here any more because the Liberal Party would take those voices away.

In the province of Ontario, for example, we have very large ridings, especially in the 905 belt, some of which are represented by large representatives, as my colleague is pointing out. There are some very large population-based ridings. Those ridings would still be under-represented. A vote in that province would not carry the same weight as a vote would in other jurisdictions of the country.

I openly admit that the bill would still leave some regions somewhat overrepresented compared to others, but it would move the entire democratic system in this country in the right direction.

If we look at the Liberal plan, as my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills has correctly pointed out, if I live in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Quebec, I understand one thing from what the Liberal proposal is. In absolute terms it would reduce the number of voices that would represent my province, that would represent my rural part of the country, that would represent my cities in Ottawa. That means that amid all of the voices here, amid all of what goes on here, in absolute terms those regions of the country would have fewer representatives than they have today.

I represent a fairly large riding. By no means is it the largest in the country, but the population of my riding is roughly 126,000. Its population size is close to that of all four ridings in Prince Edward Island. By that math, a vote in the riding of Peterborough is worth about 25% of what a vote in Prince Edward Island is worth. We have understood that. It is okay. Our system is not perfect. We understand that we need to correct it.

Bill C-20 reduces the number of votes in each riding in the province of Ontario and it does so in a very fair and principled way, working off census figures. It makes sure, as I said earlier, that no province is actually going to lose representatives and it also maintains the proportional representation of the province of Quebec.

That is why, for example, only a few weeks ago when the bill was introduced, Liberal members said that they thought we got it right. The leader of the Liberal Party is on the record as saying that. Members currently in the House who are making some commentary while I am speaking are on the record as saying such. That is why the bill, when it was introduced, received the endorsement, largely, of governments right across the country. That is why Canadians are supportive of the bill.

I would argue that the Liberals are playing a little bit of cheap politics on this. They are saying that they will hold the number of seats in the House of Commons at the arbitrary figure of 308. There is nothing special about the number 308, other than it happens to be the number today, but it was not the number when some of the members across the way were elected. It was not the number when a number of great prime ministers of this country served. That number comes as a result of a formula that has been in place since 1867, which was later refined in the 1980s. That is where 308 comes from.

The longer the current formula is in place, the more the electoral system in Canada, representation by population that we espouse, the more that actually becomes stretched and the less it becomes in actual effect in this country.

It is critically important that we move in that direction. That is what Bill C-20 does. If we determine, as the Liberal Party has, that it should be an arbitrary number of 308, and we start taking seats away from some regions and depositing them in other regions while still not moving any of those regions to representation by population, it would simply be playing cheap politics.

The Liberals are saying it is not the right time to spend money. That is very interesting. They did not feel that way on the per vote subsidy. They thought the per vote subsidy should be maintained. They were not in favour of saving Canadians that money. I am sure my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London recalls that debate in the House. We almost had a coalition government over that with the various parties, including the Bloc Québécois.

Ultimately, we are here to discuss fair representation. The Liberal Party members are being somewhat presumptuous when they say that when we add more members of Parliament, it will cost x number of dollars, because they are simply taking that average, but there has been no determination in the House as to what savings can be found. I challenge members across the way. I receive a subsidy to account for the excessive number of folks that I represent compared to other ridings, but I should not expect that the subsidy would be continued if the total number of electors in my riding is in fact reduced, and I do not. I do not expect that at all. I expect efficiencies to be found in those areas.

I would simply note that this all comes back to fair representation. That is what it is about. That is why the Liberal premier of Ontario has said that he supports the government's plan for fair representation, not the plan put forward by the Liberal Party, not the proposal put forward by his Liberal cousins, and certainly not the plan put forward by the NDP, which would probably expand this House closer to 400 members. It would actually move us much farther away from actual representation by population in the country, because it is also quite arbitrary in how it is put together.

This is the best formula. It is quite simply the best formula to move all provinces toward fair representation in a reasonable and principled manner. There has to be a principle behind what we are doing when it comes to representation in this country.

The growth in the size of the House of Commons will be kept at a reasonable level. I should note that all efforts will be made to make sure that the cost of operations in the House are conscientiously maintained at a level that I believe Canadians support.

What I will never support is to reduce in absolute terms the number of voices that speak for rural Canada, the number of voices that speak for northern Canada, the number of voices that speak for places outside the large metropolitan areas. That is what the Liberal proposal would do. It would hurt farmers. It would hurt our natural resource economy. It would hurt our rural municipalities. It would make a loser out of every region and territory of this country. That is why it is a Liberal loser plan.

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to enter into this debate with a question for the hon. member.

The hon. member may know that Canada has recommitted $1.2 billion toward a global adaptation fund, something I am very proud of, but there is something else this government has done. It amazes me that the member quoted things that, frankly, take a shot at her own country. I cannot understand that. It takes a shot at Canadians, the Canadian economy and Canadian workers.

We are moving to regulate, in absolute terms, the emissions of this country for a reduction of 17% by 2020. That is a target that has been matched by the United States. Perhaps she can name another government, other than this one, that has managed an absolute reduction in greenhouse gases. Maybe that is what she should be saying to international partners and asking what they are doing, because Canada is acting, is reducing emissions in absolute terms, and we are going to continue to do that all the way to 2020.

Does she say that when she speaks with international partners or does she down talk people who work in the energy sector in this country who need those jobs?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member's speech. Before I get to my question, I would encourage the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board to consider playing the part of Tom Selleck in the next Magnum, P.I.. That is one heck of a moustache this Movember.

With regard to the member's comments regarding the Wheat Board, as I indicated earlier, I come from a farming background, in the great province of Ontario. We do not have a wheat board that ensures quality, but people line up to buy it because they know the quality of Ontario produce and grains and oilseeds is outstanding.

The member can talk of anecdotal evidence that he might have in support of the Wheat Board. It is not a market. Farmers there are not selling to the market. They are forced to provide their produce to the Wheat Board. They do not have an opportunity to go to the market with their grain. Nobody in any other part of the country, British Columbia, Ontario or Quebec, wants a wheat board. That is because they see the opportunity in the market.

Ontario, for example, has the second largest food processing industry in North America. I do not know if the member knows that. That is, in part, due to the fact that we have a free market in grains and oilseeds. Quaker Oats in Peterborough, for example, buys oats from local farmers. It has been a great partnership for the people of my riding.

I wonder why the member would close off opportunities to prairie farmers that farmers in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere have.