Jack Harris

[Firearms Registry, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, under the legislation, semi-automatics and armour-piercing sniper rifles, even those capable of dropping a target two kilometres away, will no longer need to be registered. The government is making it easier for these dangerous firearms to fall into the wrong hands.

The government likes to talk about hunters, but the last time I checked, hunters were not going after armoured targets one and one-half kilometres away.

How is the government's decision to remove the last line of defence against these high-powered rifles in the interest of public safety?

[Firearms Registry, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government's reckless move is already creating chaos, stripping a life-saving tool that is used 17,000 times a day by police. Provinces are already saying they will not comply. There is mounting opposition from police, mounting opposition from provinces.

Why does the government not recognize the mounting opposition, transfer the data to the provinces and, as have the police have asked, to the Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre? What does the government have against our police forces?

[Firearms Registry, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from that answer the government does not have one good reason for blocking the provinces from protecting their citizens. It is not just provinces that find the government reckless; it is also law enforcement. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says that the complete loss of the firearms database would severely reduce the ability of police to trace guns in this country.

Why is the government, in face of overwhelming evidence and opposition, moving forward with this reckless anti-police agenda and destroying life-saving data?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Gatineau for her balanced approach to this issue.

I note she quoted the figure of $4 million, which is the figure given by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who run the registry, not the $1 billion which is wasted and gone.

A couple of things in the RCMPs report on the whole firearms program are interesting as well. It stated:

Without registration there is a failure of accountability on behalf of the owner, and it is registration that drives accountability. Without registration, anyone can buy and sell firearms privately and there would be no record...Registration further helps to reduce the general proliferation of firearms. This is very useful in investigating licensed owners in the trafficking of firearms to unlicensed users. Without the registry it becomes almost unenforceable.

While it is not a magic bullet that will prevent all crime, there are obviously uses for it. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is interested in public safety in this country, says the government should listen to that. Would the member care to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Mount Royal could comment on the statement by the Minister of Public Safety this morning who, in his capacity as Minister of Public Safety, expressed the view that there was no valid public safety reason for maintaining the records, which are now contained in the registry, when, as was indicated in the member's speech, the National Assembly of Quebec and the Government of Quebec want to maintain these records in the interest of public safety. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has said the same thing.

How can the member square the statement of the Minister of Public Safety and these other factors?

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

Madam Speaker, the registration of guns in an acceptable legislative framework enhances the accountability of gun owners to take responsibility for what can be in the wrong hands a dangerous and fatal weapon. Responsibility is engendered by the registry and that is why we should improve it and keep it.

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

Madam Speaker, clearly, the destruction of this data is an irresponsible act and contrary to the public safety needs of Canadians. In particular, the province like Quebec is saying that it feels so strongly about this that it is going to refuse to destroy this information because it believes it has been collected by taxpayers, including the taxpayers of Quebec, and that it wants to ensure that it has a higher degree of public safety and that the cost effectiveness of trying to duplicate this is prohibitive.

The Conservatives are showing a great deal of disrespect for the people of Quebec and the Government of Quebec. That is reprehensible and it is contrary to the kind of federal-provincial co-operation in which we expect all governments in Canada to get involved.

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

Madam Speaker, what is clear is that New Democrats want to see an end to the divisiveness that the government has engendered. We want to fix the gun control system and we want to ensure that public safety is foremost. That is where the New Democrats are united on this issue. We are determined to ensure that the government respects the need for public safety.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it hard to explain what the government is saying or why it is saying it. The destruction of records was never part of the other bills that were brought before the House. The irresponsible nature of the government's approach to this is a new element and it is one that has invoked an incredible backlash across the country.

The minister went so far as to say this morning that there was no valid public safety reason to have this data. This is in the face of millions of Canadians who support the registry. Also, the police chiefs say that this is important.

We know there are problems. We know they have to be fixed. However, the government opposite has taken the position that there is no public safety interest in having this kind of gun control.

I find it astounding and reprehensible that it would go so far as to not only do that, but to say to a province like Quebec that it will insist that it destroys those records. The Government of Quebec has said that it will not comply. Now we will get into a federal-provincial fight by a failure to respect the wishes of the people of Quebec as described by their government to ensure that they have a greater measure of gun control than the Conservative government is prepared to support.

It is reprehensible and irresponsible. I think there will be a very strong reaction in the country to the government's plans.

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

Madam Speaker, we are talking about trying to find solutions to strike a balance between individuals who have a particular point of view, such as this member, and the need for public safety.

We are looking at finding a solution. What we are saying is that for the first time, non-registration of a long gun would not be a criminal offence. We are looking at finding a legislative way of doing that through an amendment. It is not for me to answer the details of that right now.

We are dealing with situations in which people feel they cannot come forward to register their guns because they would expose themselves to a criminal offence if they registered for the first time. We are saying that we would not seek to do that. It could be a matter of discretionary use of the charges or the possibility of charges. There are various ways, administrative and otherwise, of doing that. The point is that we would allow people to come forward and have their guns registered.

If people are discovered with unregistered guns, they could be subject to a penalty if they did not register their guns within a certain period of time, but they would not be given a penalty for being discovered with an unregistered gun. That is simply what we are talking about.