Laurie Hawn

[The Environment, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last July, the government released an integrated environment monitoring plan for the oil sands. That plan was developed in partnership with leading environmental scientists from across Canada. It outlined all the elements needed to have a world-class monitoring program. Since then, our government has continued working constructively with our Alberta counterparts to build further on that foundation.

On Friday, the Minister of the Environment had the honour of joining Alberta environment and water minister, the hon. Diana McQueen, in announcing the implementation plan of our joint oil sands monitoring system. This comprehensive new plan goes well beyond our existing provincial and federal air, land, water and biodiversity monitoring. As a result, we will be monitoring in more places more frequently for more substances.

We have one of the most accountable and transparent oil sands monitoring systems in the world. Our scientific data will be posted on the web for all the world to see and I challenge other oil-producing nations to do the same. Our government is committed to developing this important resource in an environmentally sustainable way.

My congratulations go to the Minister of the Environment on what can only be classified as the best oil sands monitoring system in the world.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we prefer to deal in positives, not double negatives.

In fact the hon. member has made our point. The simple fact is that most of those terrible incidents have happened with legally owned, registered firearms. So how the heck did that registration prevent that crime from happening? It just makes no sense.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

It comes back to what we have been talking about. It is not the object but the people handling the object. I deal a lot with K Division of the RCMP in Edmonton. I deal a lot with the Edmonton Police Service. I go on ride-alongs with them and we discuss these kinds of issues. They tell me that there are about 150 people or so in Edmonton, whom, if they could take them off the streets, the crime rate in Edmonton would go down by about 50%.

It is not the object, it is the people behind it. That is what a good registration system will do: it will identify the people who are at risk of being violent offenders and do something about them instead of chasing farmers and duck hunters. That is simply not the answer.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

The simple fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that since the early 1970s, gun deaths from suicide, murder or violence have been decreasing. The opposition wants to hang the credit for that on the gun registry. That is simply not true. We can have a discussion about registration and other things, if the member wishes, but to say that the decrease since 1991 is due to the effect of the gun registry is simply false.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that our government is looking after the interests of families. We are looking after the interests of all Canadians.

New Democrats like to quote statistics to the effect that suicide and firearm deaths have come down since 1991 because of the gun registry. What they neglect to say is that for the 20 years before that, those deaths had been coming down as well. It was simply a continuation of what had already been happening 20 years before the long gun registry was put in place. The long gun registry had zero additional impact on that trend.

As with everything, it depends on what one looks at. If one wants to look at a certain amount of data, one will get the answer one wants. If one wants to look at all of the data, one might get an entirely different answer, but we prefer to look at all of the data to get the true answer.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to express my support for Bill C-19, the ending the long gun registry act.

I would like to start off by commending my hon. colleague from Portage—Lisgar for all her good work on this file, and especially my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville, who has worked so hard on this file for so many years. I would also like to thank the Minister of Public Safety for introducing the legislation and moving us all a step closer to fulfilling one of our long-standing commitments to Canadians.

I am proud to be part of a government that actually follows through on its commitments to Canadians. Our government promised Canadians that we would waste no time in the 41st Parliament before introducing legislation that would repeal the wasteful long gun registry. Today we are delivering on that commitment to Canadians.

Our government is working hard to ensure the safety of our streets and communities. Law enforcement knows this, Canadians know this, and criminals know this. When it comes to the issue of gun crime, this is a government that believes in having effective measures to deal with the issue. We need to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to target those offenders who commit gun crimes and threaten our communities. At the same time we must ensure that millions of law-abiding Canadians are not being needlessly burdened.

As it exists today, the ineffective long gun registry unfairly equates law-abiding gun owners to common criminals. Simply put, the long gun registry targets rural Canadians, farmers and duck hunters as criminals.

Although I have never personally owned a gun, I grew up hunting small game and game birds with my father, brother and uncles. The first long gun I used was an old Cooey single shot .22. Pop guns and the odd rabbit and squirrel felt the impact of my limited prowess. Those were fun and carefree days, but I remember the very serious attention that my mentors instilled in me with regard to safe handling, safe storage and responsibility when handling firearms. The vast majority of gun owners today are the same kind of people and deserve to be treated with respect. I am standing here today as a member of a government that is standing up for these Canadians. It is unacceptable to treat these salt of the earth people as criminals, and we are going to take action. Bill C-19 would put an end to this ineffective and wasteful long gun registry once and for all.

Permit me to highlight the merits of the bill before the House.

This legislation would remove the need to register non-restricted firearms, such as shotguns and rifles. This is good news for farmers and hunters. These folks use long guns as a tool to earn their living, whether through hunting game or protecting their livestock. This is not to say that Bill C-19 would do away with gun control entirely as some would disingenuously suggest.

Let me re-emphasize that Bill C-19 would retain licensing requirements for all gun owners while doing away with the need for honest, law-abiding citizens to register their rifles or shotguns. All of the common-sense regulations regarding training, safe handling and storage would be unchanged.

Bill C-19 also includes a provision for the destruction of all records related to the registration of non-restricted firearms that are currently held in the Canadian firearms registry and under the control of the chief firearms officers. This provision would ensure that for the millions of Canadians who have registered their non-restricted firearms, their private information would not be distributed to other entities.

What we seem to have difficulty getting across to members across the floor is that the data is the registry and the registry is the data. We cannot eliminate the long gun registry without eliminating the data.

Let me be as clear as possible for those listening at home. The government will not allow for the creation of a long gun registry by the back door. This government has heard loud and clear from Canadians who own non-restricted firearms. They want the long gun registry eliminated. They want to ensure that their private information is not distributed to other entities.

Let me pause for a moment to address the issue of the registry data being destroyed. This has certainly been a subject, as I have mentioned, of much discussion in the media, in this House, and in coffee shops across the country. The Minister of Public Safety was very clear about this in his appearance at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I would like to repeat here what he said so plainly about that issue. He said:

The registry is the data; without the data there is no registry. So when our government and our party made the very clear commitment that we would scrap the long-gun registry, that we would end it, implicit in that, indeed explicit, is that we would be destroying the information that's been collected under the authority of that legislation. There's simply no other answer to that.

Let us move on from that discussion to refocus on the task at hand.

The fact is that law-abiding firearms owners across the country welcome this legislation. These owners understand that being held accountable for their actions by requiring them to take responsible measures to protect their fellow Canadians is reasonable. They also understand that being burdened with unnecessary registration and regulations is not reasonable.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast understand the need to ensure that our country has a system of gun control that is both effective and efficient. That is why our government has invested $7 million annually to strengthen the front-end screening of first-time firearms licence applicants, with a view to keeping firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them. We must ensure there are gun control measures to keep firearms out of the hands of those who threaten our safety and that of our communities.

Measures taken in the area of firearms control should enhance public safety on our streets and communities by preventing firearms from falling into the hands of offenders and setting tough consequences if they do. This is what Canadians expect and this is what our government is doing. Our government is determined to get tough on those who commit crimes, the individuals who use firearms for criminal purposes. That is the most important part of effective gun control.

In my city of Edmonton, as in many others, authorities have been dealing with disturbing levels of violence. The issue is not the availability of guns, and especially not long guns. The issues are more related to the people who are committing these violent acts. I would encourage all hon. members of the House to ask Canadians, particularly those in remote and rural areas of this country, how penalizing law-abiding Canadians on a farm or in the woods would help reduce gun crimes in our urban centres such as Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver. Quite simply, it does not.

What members will hear overwhelmingly from Canadians is that now is the time for effective gun control. Now is the time to make sure our resources go toward effective programming that helps prevent crime and to stop penalizing honest, hard-working and law-abiding Canadians. Now is the time for all members of the House to listen to Canadians and eliminate this wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all. That is exactly what our government will do.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, December 12th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP oppose creating jobs. They travel abroad to attack Canada and they oppose all free trade agreements. Even the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would, as he says, “violently agree”.

The NDP's leadership candidates attack our energy sector and many across the aisle naively cry for a halt to the development of the oil sands. They have tried to kill billions of dollars in investment and are happy to sacrifice 622,000 jobs across Canada. They have no policies that will secure Canada's economic future.

Instead of supporting private sector union jobs, the NDP chooses to side with a small group of foreign-financed special interest activists who protest against our energy resources.

The oil sands are a proven strategic resource for Canada that create jobs and economic opportunity for Canadians in all provinces and all regions of the country. Abandoning Canada's economic interests is yet another clear indication that the ineffective, disunited NDP is unfit to govern.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, perspectives change over time with experience when one gets immersed in the reality of what goes on in the House or anything that we do as representatives of the people of Canada.

I will give quotes from another couple of people who have commented on this. One is by Christy Clark, the premier of British Columbia, who said:

I think they got close. Perfection in these things is impossible because it's a big and complicated country. The thing that is really encouraging about it is, we now have a formula that means we will not continue to be under-represented.

Cal Dallas, the Alberta intergovernmental affairs minister, said:

Obviously, the voice of Alberta representation will be enhanced and over a long period of time will have a significant impact for Albertans.

I am here to represent Edmonton Centre, Alberta and Canadians. We are all doing that in the best way we know how.

There was a point earlier about people not knowing how many seats there were in the House. I can guarantee that most people in my riding know who their member of Parliament is and that they have access to me. If there are 20,000 or 25,000 fewer people trying to get that access, then it stands to reason their access would be better.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, those are two very practical and reasonable questions.

On the first matter of cost, it is about fair representation to constituents. In my case, it is about having a riding that has over 130,000 people and, in an extreme case, a riding in P.E.I. that has maybe 35,000 people. The bill would give access to folks on a more equal basis and, yes, there is a cost involved in doing that. To an extent, that is the cost of doing business.

However, I go back to my colleague from Ontario who talked about other ways to mitigate that. We are going through a deficit reduction program now on this side of the House, in which I am personally involved. There are a number of measures that we could take to economize on some of the things we do as members of Parliament, and that is part of what we would do.

With respect to the size of the House and the physical capacity, a study done in 1996 concluded that within the current space, there was adequate space to allow for, in a fairly current kind of setting, 375 members in the House. It would take an awfully long time for us to get to that stage, if we ever do. However, in regard to that practical question, there is room in the House for significant expansion.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, the fair representation act.

Bill C-20 delivers on our government's long-standing commitment to move the House of Commons toward fair representation. We have campaigned on those promises and Canadians voted for us to deliver on that commitment to them.

In addition to jobs and the economy, our government's top priorities, our party committed in the last general election that we would address the representation gap experienced by Canadians in the fast growing provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

We made three distinct promises on House of Commons representation. First, that we would increase the number of seats now and in the future to better reflect population growth in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. Second, that we would protect the number of seats for smaller provinces. Third, that we would protect the proportional representation of Quebec according to its population.

Our government received a strong mandate to deliver on these commitments and we are doing exactly that with the fair representation act. Bill C-20 would move every Canadian closer to representation by population.

To start, it is important to revisit the primary motive in bringing this legislation forward. Canadians living in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario are significantly and increasingly under-represented in relation to their share of Canada's population.

The representation of the provinces in the House of Commons is readjusted every 10 years using a formula established in section 51 of the Constitution Act of 1867. The current formula dates to 1985 and was designed with the purpose of tempering growth in the House.

While the 1985 formula has been successful in limiting the size of the House of Commons, it has created a gap in representation for the faster growing provinces as the representation of those provinces has moved farther and farther away from what their population would warrant.

Well over 60% of Canada's population is and would continue to be seriously and increasingly under-represented using the current formula. The combined effect of fixing the formula divisor at 279, as the current formula does, and the existence of constitutional seat guarantees has left Canadians living in the fastest growing provinces significantly and increasingly under-represented.

As Canada's population grows, their representation will continue to fall relative to their share of the population. Clearly, this is not fair and, clearly, something needs to be done.

The formula in Bill C-20 is principled and is a reasonable update designed to bring those provinces that experience high population growth closer to representation by population.

Strict representation by population would be impossible in the House of Commons without a massive increase in the number of seats. Exact representation by population based on some of the current constitutional guarantees, for example, would require over 900 members in the House of Commons with our existing constitutional guarantees and, clearly, that is not possible.

Bill C-20 is the best formula for bringing fairer representation to the House in a principled manner while maintaining a manageable number of seats in the House and while respecting the long-standing constitutional guarantees protecting the representation of smaller provinces.

In fact, the fair representation act brings every province closer to representation by population. If we look broadly, the practical results of applying the new formula will be to add 30 seats to the House of Commons for a total of 338. The national average riding size will fall from 112,692 to 102,600.

In terms of the provincial breakdown: Ontario would receive 15 seats, Alberta would receive 6 seats and British Columbia would also receive 6 new seats. Quebec would receive three new seats as a result of being the first beneficiary of the representation rule which would ensure that its seat total does not become less than what is proportionate to its population.

Significantly, unlike the formula on the books today, the Bill C-20 formula accounts for population growth and trends. It is flexible and would be able to more accurately reflect population trends over time. Under the status quo formula, the electoral portion was set and did not move to accommodate population growth. This contributed to the faster growing provinces becoming increasing and significantly under-represented.

By introducing a seat allocation formula that is more responsive to population growth and trends, the fair representation act would move the House closer to representation by population both now and in the future, and that is good news for all Canadians.

A further update to the formula is to base the allocation of seats among the provinces on Statistics Canada's population estimates. There is a reason for that. The population estimates provide a more accurate picture of Canada's total population. The chief statistician endorsed this change, and said so when he appeared at the procedure and House affairs committee on November 17. When asked directly whether the population estimates were a more accurate assessment of the population than the census or any other numbers available, he said, “Yes, that is absolutely our view”.

As a member from Alberta, I want to take a moment to underline the significant step toward representation by population that Albertans will take with the bill.

As it stands, the average size of a riding in Alberta is 134,977 people, which is much higher than the national average riding size of 112,692. Is it fair that the democratic voice of Albertans is significantly diminished merely because of the province in which they live? We do not believe that is fair.

Every Canadian's vote, to the greatest extent possible, should carry equal weight. The population growth within those fast-growing provinces has been even higher in larger urban and suburban areas, such as my riding of Edmonton Centre.

Canada's new and visible minority population is increasing largely through immigration and these immigrants tend to settle in fast-growing communities in our fastest-growing provinces.

These three factors, high immigration to fast-growing regions of the fastest-growing provinces, combine to magnify the representation gap for those areas. This situation inadvertently causes Canadians in large urban centres, new Canadians and visible minorities to be even more under-represented than the average. It is clear that this situation undermines the principle of representation by population in our country.

Alberta would get six new seats in the House of Commons. However, without this legislation, Alberta would only receive half as much representation in the upcoming redistribution. With Bill C-20, Alberta would have a share of representation that would be more in line with its share of population.

The average riding size in Alberta would drop to a manageable 111,157 after the next redistribution. For Alberta, the fair representation act means that as the province's population grows over time, Albertans would continue to have a strong voice in Parliament, and this is only fair.

To conclude, the fair representation act is the best formula to address the under-representation of Canadians living in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, without pitting Canadian against Canadian and region against region. It is reasonable, it is principled and it is fair for all Canadians. It would achieve better representation for Canadians living in fast-growing provinces, while maintaining representation for smaller and slower-growing provinces. It brings every Canadian closer to representation by population. It delivers on our government's long-standing commitment to move towards fairer representation in the House of Commons.

The fair representation act is principled. It is reasonable legislation that needs to be passed as quickly as possible. I encourage the opposition to work with us in this regard.