John Williamson

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

I was there. I was in the room. That is why newspapers and media outlets across the country trumpet a $2 billion cost to the registry.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point, but it is wrong.

The Auditor General gave up her study because she concluded the paper trail just was not there. She was not able to even—

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I must confess I have no idea how many hunters use that particular weapon when hunting.

I also do not know if the hon. member missed question period earlier today when the Prime Minister responded to this point saying that this bill does not affect the system which determines which firearms are restricted and which are not. That system was set up by the previous government and it is one we continue to follow. We will listen to the experts on that. That component is not part of this bill.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased today to speak in favour of law-abiding gun owners.

I am also pleased to speak on behalf of the many Canadian taxpayers who are asking the government for nothing more than to spend tax dollars wisely. I am pleased to support the bill and I know voters back home are watching to ensure I do.

For many years now Canadians who use rifles and shotguns for legitimate reasons have protested against the long-gun registry and increasingly, over the last number of years, taxpayers have joined their protest.

Last May, our government again promised to get rid of the long gun registry once and for all. In the throne speech, we repeated this promise. Now, with this bill, I am proud to say that we are fulfilling that promise.

First, let us look at the bill in the context of our crime reduction strategy.

The proposed legislation would build on a series of initiatives to make our streets safer that have extended over the last five years. During this time, our government created mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious gun crimes. We have created a new broad-based offence to target drive-by and other intentional shootings. We have also given the provinces and territories more money to enforce the law.

The bill is part of our larger agenda to make our communities and neighbourhoods safer. It is also part of an agenda to spend tax dollars in a way that would respect the priorities of Canadians.

The legislation would end the discrimination against rural Canadians for their use of shotguns and rifles. In doing so, it would eliminate the element of the current gun control system that is both wasteful and ineffective. It would also close a sorry chapter in the decade-long abuse dished out to taxpayers.

Moreover, it would retain the best parts of existing legislation which would allow us to focus our attention against real threats to public safety.

I would like to present some evidence in support of these arguments. However, I would first like to quickly explain why the bill before us is so necessary and is long overdue.

There is no evidence that the long gun registry keeps front line police officers safer, nor is there evidence to highlight just how the registration has prevented crime or reduced crime in this country.

This is not about having a system that is better than nothing. The registry has been a failure. It has failed law-abiding Canadians, it has failed the public and, importantly, it has failed Canadian taxpayers.

Let me explain. The current law targets duck hunters and farmers by making criminals of law-abiding citizens. Moreover, there is no evidence that it has prevented a crime before the fact. Police chiefs who support the registry have in fact been asked about this, yet have been unable to come up with examples where the registry was used to foil a crime.

For all this, the price has been an astounding $2 billion. Yet, earlier today, the member for Winnipeg North disputed this figure, saying it was not grounded in reality. This is an outrageous statement.

Let us go over the history very quickly. When the registry was set up, initially, the then Liberal justice minister claimed it would cost Canadian taxpayers $2 million. Yet the price went up and up and eventually hit $2 billion. In fact, the Auditor General herself concluded the price at over $1 billion and then gave up the audit, simply because the paperwork was not there for her to complete it at the time. I do not think there is much of a dispute out there that the registry has cost $2 billion. For an hon. member to suggest otherwise is not being truthful with Canadian taxpayers.

Thus, in addition to being costly and ineffective, the long gun registry places an unfair burden on law-abiding citizens, people who use rifles and shotguns to protect livestock or provide food for their families, or who might use long guns for sports, such as wild game hunting and target shooting.

Ponds and woodlands in Canada's rural areas are often far from the scene of a crime. Forcing farmers and hunters to register their long guns has not protected Canadians living in urban areas. There is no evidence to support the long gun registry, but there is ample proof that the registry is ineffective.

Let me take a few moments to break some time-honoured myths.

First, most violent gun crime in Canada does not involve long guns. Between 1975 and 2006, for example, Statistics Canada showed the use of rifles or shotguns in homicides declined by a remarkable 86%. In 2006 alone, three times as many victims were killed with a handgun than with rifles or shotguns. These statistics are no aberration. In 2009, out of the 179 firearm homicides, almost 60% of the crimes were committed with handguns.

Furthermore, where long guns are actually used in violent crimes, the vast majority of the firearms are unregistered. Between 2005 and 2009, for example, police recovered 253 firearms that were used to commit a homicide. Of these, less than one-third, 31%, were actually listed with the Canadian firearms registry. Members opposite may say that one out of three is not bad, but again, let me highlight that these guns were only seized after the crimes were committed, not beforehand.

What all this means is that law-abiding citizens are spending time and money to comply with an ineffective law. At the same time, and this should come as no surprise to anyone in the House, criminals with guns simply ignore the registry. The result is an ineffective system that discriminates for no good reason, except perhaps prejudice against legitimate long gun owners, and it does nothing to stem the tide of illegal firearms crossing the border.

Again, what did the taxpaying public receive for all of this? An astounding bill for $2 billion. Imagine for a moment if that money had been spent instead on front-line policing, health care, the Canadian Forces, or even going after illegal guns. Members can pick whatever they like, but I cannot think of a program in the last 20 years that similarly failed to deliver on its promise.

With all this in mind, let me recap the provisions of the new bill and how it will address these issues. The most important component of Bill C-19, and the one that has been so long awaited, is the end of the registration for non-restricted firearms. At the same time, the bill will retain the gun licensing system. Licences will still be required to own any type of firearm. An applicant will still need to undergo a background check and pass a firearms safety course. In addition, owners of restricted and prohibited firearms will still need to register these weapons through the RCMP. As such, we would continue controlling the use of restricted and prohibited firearms, such as handguns, which are by far the firearms of choice in the commission of a homicide.

Finally, the bill would address a very important issue that flows from our promises. As members can imagine, the registry has demanded mountains of paperwork from law-abiding citizens. This has long been a source of concern. Canadians are concerned about what will happen to these records. Will they be taken over by another level of government, or by a federal agency?

Earlier I mentioned the voters in New Brunswick Southwest. During the campaign the Conservatives promised to end the long gun registry. When asked what would happen to the data, I replied it would be deleted. After all, the data is the registry. One cannot credibly claim to oppose the registry yet quietly turn around and keep the information. This would make our pledge meaningless. We will instead preserve the privacy of these Canadians and end this failed debacle once and for all. I am pleased to say that the bill requires the elimination of all records related to the registry of non-restricted firearms contained within the Canadian firearms registry.

The proposed legislation is long overdue. It promises to eliminate a wasteful, ineffective long gun registry that penalizes law-abiding citizens and it will do so without weakening gun control. Instead, we can spend the millions we save each year on crime prevention programs that will truly help make our communities safer.

In short, the bill would replace waste and ineffectiveness with efficiency and value for money. For all these reasons, I urge members of the House to join me and countless Canadian taxpayers in supporting this bill.

[New Brunswick Southwest, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to address the chamber. I will endeavour to honour and respect it throughout my time in this place. My congratulations to you, young sir, on your election as Speaker, and to all hon. colleagues.

I am proud to serve with the Prime Minister, whose achievements have recently earned him the trust of Canadians.

I am both grateful and humbled to have received the confidence of the people of New Brunswick Southwest and will devote my time here to advancing their interests. In that pursuit, I have a great example to guide me.

My predecessor, the honourable Greg Thompson, was a credit to our noble calling. His relentless efforts on behalf of the people of New Brunswick Southwest achieved real results for my constituency, my province and my country.

A tribute dinner will take place for Greg on Saturday, October 22 at the Algonquin Hotel in Saint Andrew's, New Brunswick, where Greg and his wife will be honoured for their many years of public service.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot these days about taxing the rich and making the rich pay, and the member touched on that in his speech. I would like to point out that there is a lot talk about tax credits that are offered to people who actually do not pay tax.

In light of the fact that the top 10% of income earners in our country, which begins at $80,000, pays 57% of all income taxes, the top 25% of income earners, which begins at $50,000, pays 82% of all federal income receipts, does the member believe that when tax cuts or tax relief is offered, it should go primarily to people who actually pay taxes, as opposed to being handed out to people who do not pay taxes in the form of spending?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, over the last five years, our government, particularly on the personal income tax side, has used a number of tax credits and incentives to encourage certain activities. The example of our volunteer firefighters tax credit is a perfect one, whereby we are trying to ensure that these organizations continue to exist throughout the country, thereby saving government money from having to fill in were these volunteers to suddenly disappear.

Similarly, we have seen other measures on trades people, for example, to lower their taxes in their day-to-day pursuit of jobs and opportunities.

We must not forget that when it comes to business taxes, we have actually picked up on reforms that were begun by the Liberal government, which is to keep putting the business tax down to 15%, a broad tax that favours all businesses in this country and encourages them to come here and create jobs.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. No political party and no government has a monopoly on good ideas. If opposition parties want to propose them, we will certainly listen to them.

I wrote a piece in the past that credited both Preston Manning and Jean Chrétien for the good state the country's finances were in. I credited Preston Manning in opposition for putting the heat on the government of the day under Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Chrétien for enacting the ideas.

Why the opposition today would want to raise taxes and spend wildly, I do not know. I think that explains in part why the third party today is no longer the government.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, like any good economic policy, a government needs to look at different levers when it sets the fiscal plan every year. We can point to countries throughout Europe, some of which are in big trouble today. They have wonderful infrastructure but lousy tax structures. As a result, they do not receive the investment, jobs or growth that is important to ensuring a high standard of living.

If the member is suggesting that we put all our eggs into building only infrastructure and we do not deal with reducing the tax burden on businesses to create jobs, he has a thing or two to learn. Bringing down taxes will ensure job creation going forward and ensure we have good roads so that our goods can get to and from market.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, October 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favour of our government's keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

Our government has remained squarely focused on the economy during these turbulent economic times and we have been getting results for Canadians. For instance, approximately 650,000 more Canadians are working today than in July 2009.

In the IMF and OECD forecast our economy will continue to be among the strongest in the G7 this year and next. When we consider what is happening around the world, that is a positive accomplishment. What is more, only recently Forbes magazine ranked Canada as the best place in the world for businesses to grow and create jobs.

Canadians can be confident their country is better positioned to face global economic challenges than most and that our government will remain focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and the economy.

Focusing on the economy and helping Canadian families is exactly what we are doing through the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. This key legislation would ensure we can keep moving forward in implementing Canada's economic action plan to grow the economy and create jobs.

The plan has been well received in my home province. For instance, the Conseil économique du Nouveau-Brunswick has called it, “far-sighted with provisions to help small and medium-size businesses increase and retain their workforce”.

As well, Doug Northrup, H&R Block tax professional in New Brunswick and a Moncton Times & Transcript personal finance columnist, called it “a people budget with new credits that will help families and seniors get more money back”.

I would like to highlight a few of the important measures in the bill at this moment.

First, recognizing the need for new family physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses to practise or work in underserviced rural or remote communities, we are introducing the medical graduates loan forgiveness initiative. This plan would forgive a portion of Canada student loans for new family physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses who worked in rural or remote communities.

Starting in 2012, new family physicians practising in such communities would be eligible for a federal Canada student loan forgiveness of up to $8,000 per year to a maximum of $40,000. New nurse practitioners and nurses practising in underserved rural or remote communities would be eligible for forgiveness of up to $4,000 a year to a maximum of $20,000.

Another measure I would like to highlight is the volunteer firefighters tax credit.

Another important measure I will highlight is the volunteer firefighters tax credit. This measure is long overdue and it recognizes the hard work of men and women in communities across the country. Volunteer firefighters play a critical role in serving communities across Canada, including in my riding of New Brunswick Southwest, often putting themselves at risk for the safety of their neighbours. Often, in rural and remote communities, these volunteer firefighters are the first responders at the site of home fires or accidents on roads. Across the country, nearly 85,000 volunteer firefighters provide their services to protect the lives of Canadians and they deserve our gratitude and support. That is why this act includes a volunteer firefighters tax credit in the amount of $3,000. This is a positive measure that has been welcomed across the country, including in my home province, as a tool to ensure we retain our volunteer firefighters.

The New Brunswick Association of Fire Chiefs declared:

...the tax credit is also an important tool when it comes to recruitment and retention. We feel that retaining volunteers that are already in place is even more important almost...because you've already invested money into those volunteers. So you want to keep them on and keep them as long as you can. Retention with some of the smaller volunteer fire departments is a big deal.

In my riding there are a lot of these small fire departments and this support is welcome.

Another measure I will highlight is supporting infrastructure in Canada by legislating that the gas tax fund transfer be permanent.

As we know, Canada’s economic action plan has helped accelerate and expand federal investments in infrastructure. The actions we took helped Canada deal with the global economic turbulence in the short term, with more modern infrastructure for the long term.

Canada's historic investment in infrastructure, like improving our roads, bridges or, in my riding, wharves, will continue to support jobs and growth beyond the economic downturn. Announced in budget 2007, the seven year building Canada plan consists of programs to meet varying infrastructure needs across the country, including the gas tax fund and a full rebate of the goods and services tax paid by municipalities. Through the gas tax fund, the Government of Canada provides $2 billion annually to support municipal infrastructure. Today's act proposes to legislate a permanent annual transfer, through the gas tax fund, to provide predictable, long-term infrastructure funding to Canada's cities and towns. This means that this funding would be taken away from the hands of politicians, I suppose, to use it as a political football, thereby guaranteeing it to municipalities so that it would be there year in and year out.

We all know that state of the art infrastructure moves people, goods and services safely and reliably. It improves business competitiveness, allowing the economy to grow and prosper, and it also enhances the quality of life of Canadians.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation—a group I am very familiar with—has applauded this move, noting, “making the Gas Tax Transfer permanent is a clear follow-through on a longstanding taxpayer priority. This will ensure that more gas tax revenues go back into roads”.

That is a good measure and one that is long overdue.

A final point that I will highlight is our Conservative government's commitment to return to balanced budgets through the responsible spending of taxpayer dollars. We are committed to principled, effective fiscal management through a detailed review of all government spending.

Nevertheless, prudent fiscal management also means leading by example and that includes political parties. That is why today’s bill phases out the costly per-vote subsidy to political parties, which forced taxpayers to support political parties rather than political parties receiving donations voluntarily from Canadians.

We firmly believe that Canadians demand that their tax dollars be treated with great care and only used in the public interest, in good times as well as in turbulent economic times. As such, I believe this move to end the political party subsidies has been and will be applauded by Canadians from coast to coast.

Again, the Taxpayers Federation said:

Eliminating the per-vote subsidy is a major victory in the fight against political welfare. ...this is major win for taxpayers and for democratic reform.

Another plug is from the Calgary Herald editorial. It remarked:

Phasing out the subsidy also forces political parties to do their own fundraising, while asking Canadians to back up their beliefs by putting their hard-earned dollars behind the parties they support.

Here in Ontario, a Kingston Whig Standard editorial heralded it as well when it stated:

If people want to advance a political agenda, let them work to finance the means to get elected. If it appeals to people, they will support it.

It's time politicians and their shills learned how to earn our support, not merely expect it.

While I only highlighted a few measures of today’s act, there are many more.

The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act recognizes the need to focus on the economy for the short and long term. I would therefore encourage all members of the House to support this key legislation.