Guy Caron

[Auditor General, October 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, let us see if the record is still broken. Yesterday, in response to a question from my colleague about the decision to appoint a unilingual anglophone Auditor General, the President of the Treasury Board said, “Upon completion of a rigorous process, the most qualified candidate was chosen.”

Now, we all agree that the President of the Treasury Board has zero credibility when it comes to undertaking a rigorous process. However, we would still like to know what is so rigorous about choosing a unilingual anglophone for a position that requires proficiency in both official languages.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-19, which would abolish the long gun registry. I am pleased because this is the first time I have the opportunity to speak to this issue, which has been discussed for a long time now. There have not been many debates, but we have had some. The issue has been coming up since at least 2006.

The riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is half rural and half urban. So I can understand both aspects of the debate. The urban part is Rimouski, which has 45,000 inhabitants. The other half of my riding is much more rural. I have spoken with a number of my constituents who are interested in and affected by this debate. I asked them questions about the registry. They replied with arguments for both sides of the issue, which is not surprising.

I spoke with hunters, collectors and long gun owners about this issue. They are concerned about the registry, with respect to some points brought up by the government. They said that the registry cost too much in the beginning, that it criminalizes gun owners and makes them feel guilty, among other similar arguments. I understand that.

However, I spoke with other people, people who work at a shelter for battered women in Rimouski-Neigette called La Débrouille. There, I heard another perfectly valid argument that the registry saves lives and that police officers in the riding use it in domestic violence incidents.

I would like to talk about these various factors and how to reconcile them. To the hunters, gun collectors and other people I speak to about the registry, I tell them that the NDP has made an effort to reconcile the various positions and to eliminate the sticking points of the bill that have been raised, without eliminating the registry itself. Often, they do not know what those sticking points are, but they include criminalization for a first offence for not registering one's firearm, the fact that it does not recognize traditional aboriginal rights and so on. When I talk to people about what was actually in the bill that my colleague from northern Ontario introduced last year, I tell them that we could keep the registry and eliminate those sticking points. They usually reply that this would be a good way of addressing their complaints, their concerns.

I believe that it is our duty as members, as representatives of our constituents, to get away from polarizing debates like this one, in which things are very black and white and we are forced to take a position either for or against. Instead, I think we must try to find a middle ground between the two sides. Honestly, as long as I have been in this House, I have never seen that happen. I have seen many polarizing positions. In the case of Bill C-19 or that of the long gun registry in general, the government has been having a field day with this issue. It was pretty easy to do from a financial perspective, which is too bad.

When I mention this position of conciliation to firearm owners, they understand and they are willing to comply. I would have liked the Conservative members to do the same thing in their ridings, instead of trying to antagonize the situation and polarize people further, which is what they have been doing for the past five or six years.

To those wanting to keep the registry, I submit as an example the situation of the shelter called La Débrouille in Rimouski-Neigette. This shelter says—and this might be news to the hon. members opposite—that when an abused woman stays at a shelter, she can choose to file a complaint against her attacker, her spouse. If she chooses to do so, the police consult the registry to see whether there are any firearms in the family home. If there are, the police can, depending on the situation, get a search warrant and remove the firearms. We are talking about a situation in which a woman is abused, where her life is definitely at risk.

The signs are clear: that woman's life is in danger. In Rimouski-Neigette, which constitutes half my riding—one of the 308 ridings in Canada—the registry is consulted at least once a day by the shelter for abused women, for this type of situation alone. Yes, the registry is useful. Yes, the registry can prevent crime.

I would also like to point out that the statistics do not lie in this case, either: 88% of the spousal homicides committed with a firearm in Canada are committed with a rifle or a shotgun. These are ordinary firearms. That is not to say that hunters or people who own firearms and rifles are potential killers or murderers, but given the number of firearms, it is clear that these firearms are more likely to be used in cases of domestic abuse.

The police have to verify whether there is a firearm, as has been mentioned in a number of debates. The police presume, when they intervene in a case of domestic violence, that there is a firearm in the home being investigated. Knowing human nature and what might be going through the mind of the police officer who has to intervene in all sorts of situations, his intervention will be much more effective if he knows that there is a firearm rather than if he simply presumes there is.

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

Mr. Speaker, something keeps happening over and over and over again. Until now, the debates in the House have been polarized. Of course there are irritants. After speaking with hunters, collectors and the people in our ridings, we on this side of the House realize that there are irritants in the gun registry.

The NDP's position has always been to find a compromise between the views of the Conservatives—and others who oppose the registry for understandable reasons that could well be debated—and the views of those who wish to keep the registry. In particular, I am thinking about the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

I wonder why we cannot find a way to work together to eliminate the irritants and keep the registry, instead of being so polarized in our attitudes and saying that this is a black and white issue and that the registry must either be eliminated or kept. While it was expensive to set up, it has a proven track record when it comes to reducing gun-related crimes. We could work together to come to a compromise that would satisfy those who oppose the registry and those who see a concrete need for keeping it.

I would like to hear the government member's thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous question by the hon. member opposite. He was wondering why we should have a firearms registry if it does not prevent certain crimes. However, during the debate on Bill C-10, the government used the opposite argument, saying that minimum sentences would help victims by preventing and deterring criminals from committing crimes.

I would like to know how the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine sees this contradiction between the arguments the Conservatives seem determined to make about Bill C-10 and those it is currently making about the firearms registry.

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

Mr. Speaker, this speech was filled with the same main points that are emblematic of this government's approach. Issues are always black and white. There is never any middle ground—we are always either for something or against it.

I heard the wonderful speech by the member for Gatineau. She spoke about the NDP's efforts to fix existing issues that are causing frustration. These issues are completely understandable. Our police authorities, who are represented by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, feel that the registry is important to their work. I hear from police officers, shelters and transition houses in my riding, and they say that this registry is essential. Changes need to be made to fix the problems, but the registry should not be abolished. While it is true that the initial investment was excessive, the registry does not cost a lot now. It could be of great use and of great benefit to the provinces, which are responsible for the administration of justice. I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two points to make. First, we are talking about the guillotine. For the fifth time since this Parliament began, the guillotine is being applied to important measures, namely, extremely critical debates that were central to the last federal election. For this reason, these debates must happen. The Conservatives are saying that debate is being limited because we have already debated these issues, but I disagree. The election was fought on these issues. As representatives of our voters and ridings, we must debate these issues in Parliament.

The only time I can understand using the guillotine is to put an end to debate on dilatory matters, where the sole objective is to waste time. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about key issues that are fundamental to the fabric of Quebec and Canadian society. I do not understand why the government wants to limit debate on the pretext that these issues have already been debated.

Second, there are also new elements. The bill talks about destroying the records. The registry is important for the administration of justice, which is an area that falls under provincial, not federal, jurisdiction. How can the Minister of Public Safety prevent the provinces from properly administering justice with the help of the registry?

[G8 Summit, October 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, no matter how much the government insists that all expenses were justified, the fact remains that the President of the Treasury Board refused to provide all documentation to the Auditor General during her investigation. The three amigos—the minister, the mayor and the hotel manager—recommended projects without providing the necessary documentation.

Will the President of the Treasury Board commit to handing all documentation in his possession over to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts?

[G8 Summit, October 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has claimed over and over again that the G8 projects came in on budget. However, now we learn that projects in Huntsville came in at over $5 million more than projected. Huntsville will need to raise its taxes to pay its part of the G8 slush fund.

How can the Conservatives say that the project came in on budget?

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

Hopefully, that kind of discussion would take place in committee. The committee members could propose various paths. Coming back to an academic perspective, I think measures to protect Quebec's book market would be necessary, particularly for professional books and text books. This has been done in the past. In a university, books and other materials can be photocopied, but this is done with dividends through various organizations that can then pass them on to the authors. In the case of new materials and new possible ways of offering courses, we need to be able to adapt and allow some flexibility, while still ensuring a dividend. This bill contains 40 exceptions, where content can be used without any compensation to authors. This must be changed. There must be a mechanism to allow these dividends to make their way to the artists so that they will be encouraged to continue their creative process.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, this bill is extremely complex and technical. That is why we have identified a number of weaknesses. The one relating to the destruction of materials, of course notes, after 30 days is a striking problem, but the main problem I see in this bill is the lost income for authors, creators and artisans. At the end of the day, if we are not able to protect that drive to create—and that is what the objective of the Copyright Act should be—then that will present a problem. The same will be true if we do not find ways to modernize the law and at the same time adapt the flow of income that creators are able to receive. That is what was done in the past when new media were developed, when we saw, first, the vinyl record. Then we got CDs, DVDs and so on. We managed to adapt the flow of income to these new facts of life, one way or another. This bill does not do that. In fact, this bill could interfere with those sources of income by jeopardizing the income of artisans, creators and artists; it could be a disincentive to that flow of creativity and diminish creators’ ability to disseminate Quebec and Canadian content on a large scale.