Françoise Boivin

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 2nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I very much like the private member's bill introduced my colleague. Having had a previous life in another party, I feel very comfortable saying that when I decided—completely voluntarily—to join the NDP, I did so by getting elected as a new member of this party. I did not leave in the middle of a term after earning the trust of my constituents under one banner, and then for some reason, no matter how valid, change my mind and cross the floor.

To pick up where the hon. Liberal member left off, what I like about the bill introduced by my colleague from Pontiac is that it does not take away an individual's right to change parties. It simply says that if someone leaves a party, he or she must be re-elected. I wonder if the member for Pontiac could explain this bill a little more—

[Firearms Registry, November 2nd, 2011]

But, Mr. Speaker, the government is failing all the victims that we are hearing on Bill C-10 and not Bill C-19.

The government's arguments do not hold water. The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River said yesterday that if Quebec wants the registry, then it will have to pay for it. However, the Privacy Commissioner refutes that argument. There need only be an agreement to share the information. There is no breach of privacy and there are no costs to cover. The only obstacle is the Conservatives.

Will the government work in good faith with the provinces—

[Firearms Registry, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if the government were to introduce bills that made sense and were supported by a majority of Canadians, we would be happy to support them. Every day, more voices are joining the outcry in Quebec and calling for the government to keep the data from the firearms registry. The National Assembly, police chiefs, families of victims of murder and suicide, groups advocating for abused women and, more recently, a large construction union, the FTQ, have all said that the data on file must be preserved.

Why is the government going to spend money on destroying useful information instead of spending money on enhancing police protection—

[Firearms Registry, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government pretends to support victims, but now it is moving to scrap years worth of gun registry records. Victims of tragedies like the shooting at l'École Polytechnique want these records kept. Police chiefs want them. Provinces want them. However, the government refuses to listen.

The government is planning a $2 billion bonfire. Why is it ignoring the pleas of victims and their families? Why will it not put public safety first?

[Firearms Registry, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this government is deliberately turning a blind eye. The Government of Quebec is threatening to go to court to prevent the destruction of the firearms registry data. Quebeckers paid their share to establish this registry. Quebec families, the parents of victims of the Polytechnique and Dawson College massacres, and the president of Quebec's Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared, established by Senator Boisvenu, are calling for gun controls to remain in place.

Is this government going to eliminate this method of ensuring public safety?

[Firearms Registry, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the reckless and spiteful decision to destroy all gun registry records shows just how out of touch the government really is. Yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously to demand the records be kept. It is even threatening legal action.

The government is not just destroying records, it is destroying a key tool for keeping our communities safe.

Why is the government insulting provinces that want to create their own registry? Why is it playing politics with public safety?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a good point.

That is why I am saying that we all need to come together to find the right solution. Some people use the registry and others do not. Why prevent some people from using a tool they find useful, with the irritants removed? That is the real question. But the government does not want to consider an alternative because that would mean admitting that it has fought consistently to scrap and even destroy the registry.

We were unaware that that was the goal. This is no longer just about scrapping the registry; the government wants to destroy the data. The government should be forewarned. I have the feeling that this will not save a great deal of money. I would like to see the cost of the upcoming court cases between the Government of Quebec and the federal government, for example.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was pretty eloquent in itself.

I would like to draw the House's attention to a very interesting article by John Geddes that appeared today:

Among the arguments against the long-gun registry, I think the most compelling, at least superficially, was the indignant assertion that gun owners are, by and large, law-abiding citizens who present no danger to society. I know that’s true. Why impose a registration requirement on them? I’m inclined to respond with smart-alecky questions about similar impositions. Why audit taxpayers when most dutifully pay up? Why ask drivers to blow at those RIDE checks when most are sober?

So let’s stick to the registry for a moment. Since criminals didn’t register, was the system useless? In 2009, Statistics Canada reported that in the previous five years police recovered 253 guns used in murders and, in fact, about a third were registered. Some had been stolen, some used by their owners, some were owned by the victim. In any case, registration records figured in the police investigations and trials.

They do use it.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to statistics released yesterday, there has been a 30% decrease in such crimes. Having said that, I am not claiming that the long gun registry has necessarily solved the problem. However, these are statistics that should concern the government. It should take a deep breath and rethink its strategy. It could also be a hero to the hunters in our respective ridings by going back to them and telling them that it has removed the irritants. At the same time, it could go to Montreal or Toronto and tell the people there that it has considered their views and that it has found ways to help them with regard to crimes committed with firearms and long guns.

There is a way to balance the positions, but it seems that only the Conservatives are refusing because they are wilfully looking the other way to avoid facing reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, who, I know, is very interested in this issue, like the rest of us.

These are serious decisions, and we take our role as legislators seriously. So instead of having preconceived ideas, we try to see both sides of the coin and determine where the truth lies.

What could be done to take the sting out of this registry? There are so many ideas and I have so little time. For one, we could decriminalize the impact this registry has on hunters. This process could be greatly simplified and related offences could be kept out of the Criminal Code. That may have been a mistake when the registry was created. That is one of the dangers of creating something in the aftermath of a dramatic event. Sometimes things move quickly and we do not think about the consequences. I am sure that the legislators in 1995 did not think that people could be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. However, that can be fixed.

Instead of clashing and being in constant conflict, and instead of using the gun registry issue to raise money, we should be trying to find solutions to fix the registry and make everyone happy.